From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kearney v. Currie

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
Jun 23, 2014
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-00039 (S.D. Tex. Jun. 23, 2014)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-00039

06-23-2014

MARK JAMAL KEARNEY, Plaintiff, v. GARY L CURRIE, et al, Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION

TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS AND TO RETAIN CASE

On May 21, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby issued his "Memorandum and Recommendation to Dismiss Certain Claims and to Retain Case" (D.E. 9). The Plaintiff was provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); General Order No. 2002-13. No objections have been filed.

When no timely objection to a magistrate judge's memorandum and recommendation is filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge's memorandum and recommendation. Guillory v. PPG Industries, Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Services Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996)).

Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation (D.E. 9), and all other relevant documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court RETAINS Plaintiff's First Amendment and RLUIPA claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants Brad Livingston and William Stephens in their official capacities, and ORDERS that these Defendants be served, and upon such service, that Plaintiff's claims concerning his right to wear a quarter-inch beard be automatically STAYED pending resolution of the issue in Ali v. Stephens, Case No. 9:09-cv-052. The Court RETAINS Plaintiff's Due Process and/or Eighth Amendment claim(s) against Warden Monroe in his individual capacity and ORDERS service on this Defendant. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's claims against Warden Currie and Warden Clark with prejudice for failure to state a claim and/or as frivolous. The Court DISMISSES claims for money damages against Defendants in their official capacities as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

__________

NELVA GONZALES RAMOS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Kearney v. Currie

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
Jun 23, 2014
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-00039 (S.D. Tex. Jun. 23, 2014)
Case details for

Kearney v. Currie

Case Details

Full title:MARK JAMAL KEARNEY, Plaintiff, v. GARY L CURRIE, et al, Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

Date published: Jun 23, 2014

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-00039 (S.D. Tex. Jun. 23, 2014)