Opinion
Civil Action 9:20-cv-249
03-02-2023
WILLIAM CURTIS JONES v. TEX. DEPART. OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIV.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHRISTINE L STETSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff William Curtis Jones, proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against three Defendants, including the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division (“TDCJ-CID”).
This matter 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 recommendations for the disposition of the case.
Discussion
Under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution, states and their agencies may not be sued unless they have consented to the particular type of suit. Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 54 (1996). The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a state or its agencies regardless of the relief sought. Okpalobi v. Foster, 244 F.3d 405, 411 (5th Cir. 2001) (en banc). TDCJ-CID is an agency of the State of Texas and is therefore immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. Harris v. Angelina Cty., Tex., 31 F.3d 331, 337 n.7 (5th Cir. 1994)) (the Texas Department of Criminal Justice is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment). As a result, the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the claim against TDCJ-CID.
Recommendation
This claim against TDCJ-CID should be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Objections
Objections must be (1) specific, (2) in writing, and (3) served and filed within ten days after being served with a copy of this report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 6(A), 6(B) AND 72(B).
A party's failure to object bars that party from (1) entitlement to de novo review by a district judge of proposed findings and recommendations, Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th Cir. 1988), and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n., 79 F.3d 1415, 1429 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).