From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marshall v. LaFlorce

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
Feb 12, 2015
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:14cv696 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2015)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:14cv696

02-12-2015

MARVIN MARSHALL #1193435 v. LARRY LaFLORCE


MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT

The Plaintiff Marvin Marshall, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaining of alleged violations of his constitutional rights. This Court ordered that the case be referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges. The sole named defendant is a TDCJ official identified as Larry LaFlorce.

After review of the pleadings, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the lawsuit be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because the statute of limitations has expired. Marshall received a copy of this report but filed no objections thereto; accordingly, he is barred from de novo review by the district judge of those findings, conclusions, and recommendations and, except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the report of the magistrate judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that the report of the magistrate judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918, 109 S.Ct. 3243 (1989) (where no objections to a magistrate judge's report are filed, the standard of review is "clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.") It is accordingly

ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (docket no. 12) is hereby ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further

ORDERED that the above-styled civil action be and hereby is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. It is further

ORDERED that the Clerk shall send a copy of this order to the Administrator of the Three Strikes List for the Eastern District of Texas. Finally, it is

ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby DENIED.

SIGNED this 12th day of February, 2015.

/s/_________

MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Marshall v. LaFlorce

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
Feb 12, 2015
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:14cv696 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2015)
Case details for

Marshall v. LaFlorce

Case Details

Full title:MARVIN MARSHALL #1193435 v. LARRY LaFLORCE

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

Date published: Feb 12, 2015

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:14cv696 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2015)