From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sanders v. Pace

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
Mar 16, 2020
Case No. 6:19-CV-528-JDK-JDL (E.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2020)

Opinion

Case No. 6:19-CV-528-JDK-JDL

03-16-2020

DANIEL SANDERS, Plaintiff, v. PAM PACE, ET AL., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Daniel Sanders, 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 January 3, 2020, Judge Love issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 11), recommending that Defendants Collier, Davis, and Putnam be dismissed from the lawsuit because Plaintiff's amended complaint did not raise claims against them. Id. at 2. A return receipt indicating delivery to Plaintiff was received by the Clerk on January 16, 2020. Docket No. 14.

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 Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).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, Plaintiff did not file 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. 11) as the findings of this Court.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report (Docket No. 11) be ADOPTED. It is further

ORDERED that the claims against the Defendants Bryan Collier, Lorie Davis, and K. Putnam are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. These Defendants are DISMISSED as parties to the lawsuit. The dismissal of these claims and parties shall have no effect upon the remaining claims and parties in the lawsuit.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 16th day of March, 2020.

/s/_________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Sanders v. Pace

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
Mar 16, 2020
Case No. 6:19-CV-528-JDK-JDL (E.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2020)
Case details for

Sanders v. Pace

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL SANDERS, Plaintiff, v. PAM PACE, ET AL., Defendants.

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

Date published: Mar 16, 2020

Citations

Case No. 6:19-CV-528-JDK-JDL (E.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2020)