Opinion
Civil Action 1:24-CV-20
02-06-2024
AGUSTIN CALDERON v. CHRISTOPHER L. NORSWORTHY, SENIOR WARDEN, et al.,
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHRISTINE L. STETSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, Agustin Calderon, an inmate currently confined at the Mark Stiles Unit with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the following defendants: Senior Warden Christopher L. Norsworthy, Senior Warden Angela N. Chavelier, Assistant Warden Hollis Wilcox, Assistant Warden Tina Thompkins, and Law Library Supervisor Anquanita Trimble.
The above-styled action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation for the disposition of the case.
Discussion
This complaint was originally filed in the Southern District of Texas on January 11, 2024 (doc. #1). The case was transferred to the Eastern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1404(a) on January 16, 2024. On January 17, 2024, the undersigned entered an order requiring Plaintiff to provide a certified income trust statement for the preceding six month period, showing the average balance in and deposits made to Plaintiff's inmate trust account (doc. # 8). On January 31, 2024, Plaintiff filed correspondence with the court, requesting that his case be dismissed without prejudice (doc. # 9).
The Defendants have not been ordered to answer or other plead in this action. Plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss his claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A). Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 should be dismissed without prejudice.
Recommendation
This civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A).
Objections
Within fourteen (14) days after receipt 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 (14) 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.