Opinion
6:24-cv-0356-JDK-KNM
11-19-2024
SECIAL HEATH, #660464 Plaintiff, v. PAROLE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JEREMY D. KERNODLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Secial Heath, an inmate of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without paying the filing fee. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell, for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.
On October 4, 2024, Judge Mitchell issued a Report recommending that the Court bar Plaintiff from proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and dismiss this case subject to reinstatement if Plaintiff pays the filing fee within fifteen days. Docket No. 4. A copy of this Report was mailed to Plaintiff, who did not file written objections to the Report.
This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).
Here, Plaintiff did not object in the prescribed period. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate Judge's findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews her legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge's Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”).
Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 4) as the findings of this Court. It is therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice for purposes of proceeding in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)-but without prejudice as to the refiling of the lawsuit with payment of the full filing fee. All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT.
So ORDERED and SIGNED.