From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Alvarez v. Reg'l Dir.

United States District Court, Southern District of Texas
May 26, 2022
Civil Action 2:21-CV-00222 (S.D. Tex. May. 26, 2022)

Opinion

Civil Action 2:21-CV-00222

05-26-2022

JOAQUIN ALVAREZ, Plaintiff, v. REGIONAL DIRECTOR, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION

DAVID S. MORALES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie Hampton's Memorandum and Recommendation (M&R). (D.E. 23). The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge's M&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); General Order No. 2002-13. No objection has been filed. When no timely objection has been filed, the district court need only determine whether the Magistrate Judge's M&R is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Powell v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP, No. CIV. A. H-14-2700, 2015 WL 3823141, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 18, 2015) (Harmon, J.).

Having carefully reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, and finding that the M&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 23). Accordingly:

(1) The Court RETAINS the following claims:

a. Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment excessive force claim for pushing and/or shoving against John Doe Transportation Officer No. 1 in his individual capacity; and
b. Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim regarding the conditions of Plaintiffs confinement in administrative segregation against Warden Sifuentes in his individual capacity. See (D.E. 20).
(2) The Court further:
a. DISMISSES Plaintiffs claim for money damages against Defendants in their official capacities as barred by the Eleventh Amendment;
b. DISMISSES with prejudice as moot Plaintiffs claim seeking injunctive relief against Warden Sifuentes in his official capacity; and
c. DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiffs claims against the remaining defendants as frivolous and/or for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1). See (D.E. 20).

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Alvarez v. Reg'l Dir.

United States District Court, Southern District of Texas
May 26, 2022
Civil Action 2:21-CV-00222 (S.D. Tex. May. 26, 2022)
Case details for

Alvarez v. Reg'l Dir.

Case Details

Full title:JOAQUIN ALVAREZ, Plaintiff, v. REGIONAL DIRECTOR, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Southern District of Texas

Date published: May 26, 2022

Citations

Civil Action 2:21-CV-00222 (S.D. Tex. May. 26, 2022)