From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rundles v. Arowosafe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
Oct 3, 2019
Case No. 6:19-CV-14-JDK-JDL (E.D. Tex. Oct. 3, 2019)

Opinion

Case No. 6:19-CV-14-JDK-JDL

10-03-2019

GLENN RUNDLES, Plaintiff, v. SEUN AROWOSAFE, Defendant.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Glenn Rundles, an inmate proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled and numbered civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On September 11, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 15), recommending that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) be granted-in-part and denied-in-part. Docket No. 15 at 6. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge granted Defendant's motion as to Plaintiff's claims against Defendant in his official capacity because Plaintiff's claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment Id. at 5. The Magistrate Judge denied Defendant's motion as to Plaintiff's claims against Defendant in his individual capacity because Plaintiff pled sufficient allegations against Defendant to state a § 1983 claim. Id. at 6. A return receipt indicating delivery to Plaintiff was received by the Clerk on September 23, 2019 (Docket No. 16).

This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service 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 Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).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, neither party filed objections in the prescribed period. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate Judge's findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews his 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 Recommendation, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 15) as the findings of this Court.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report (Docket No. 15) be ADOPTED. It is further

ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 12) be GRANTED as to Plaintiff's claims against Officer Arowosafe in his official capacity and DENIED as to Plaintiff's claims against Officer Arowosafe in his individual capacity.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 3rd day of October, 2019.

/s/_________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Rundles v. Arowosafe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
Oct 3, 2019
Case No. 6:19-CV-14-JDK-JDL (E.D. Tex. Oct. 3, 2019)
Case details for

Rundles v. Arowosafe

Case Details

Full title:GLENN RUNDLES, Plaintiff, v. SEUN AROWOSAFE, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

Date published: Oct 3, 2019

Citations

Case No. 6:19-CV-14-JDK-JDL (E.D. Tex. Oct. 3, 2019)