Opinion
Civil Action 9:23cv167
10-03-2023
DEREK CLINTON WARD v. SHERIFF JASON BRIDGES
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff Derek Clinton Ward, a jail inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The above-styled action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.
Discussion
Plaintiff claims the conditions at the jail violate his civil rights. Specifically, plaintiff complains of the alleged lack of communication and denial of access to the courts, as well as corruption at the jail. Plaintiff has previously filed another civil rights case against the same defendant as in this action concerning conditions at the jail which included overcrowding and the inability to communicate. See Ward v. Bridges, Civil Action No. 9:23cv132 (E.D. Tex.). The previous case is presently pending before this court. Any additional facts plaintiff desires to bring to the court's attention about his claims should be brought in Civil Action No. 9:23cv132.
Dismissal of the above-styled action would be in the interests of justice because plaintiff will be required to pay the full $402.00 filing fee for each action if he continues to pursue his claims as separate actions. Accordingly, the above-styled action should be dismissed without prejudice as repetitious of Civil Action No. 9:23cv132.
Recommendation
The above-styled civil rights action should be dismissed without prejudice.
Objections
Within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the magistrate judge's report, any party may serve and file written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C).
Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations contained within this report within fourteen days after service shall bar an aggrieved party from the entitlement of de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72.