Opinion
Civil Action 2:22-CV-00141
02-23-2023
JEWELL THOMAS, Petitioner, v. JERRY SANCHEZ, ISSAC KWARTENG, LANETTE LINTHICUM, BRYAN COLLIER, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE - CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION DIVISION, Respondents.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DREW B. TIPTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending before the Court is the September 2, 2022 Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) prepared by Magistrate Judge Jason R. Libby. (Dkt. No. 18). Magistrate Judge Libby made findings and conclusions and recommended that the Court dismiss all claims against all Respondents. (Dkt. No. 18 at 1). Magistrate Judge Libby further recommends that the dismissal of this case count as a “strike” for purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
The Parties were provided proper notice and the opportunity to object to the M&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). On Sep. 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed two objections. (Dkt. No. 22). First, Thomas objects to Judge Libby's findings regarding his Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claims. (Dkt. No. 22 at 23-24). Second, Thomas objects to Magistrate Judge Libby's findings in relation to his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Warden Sanchez, Dr. Kwarteng, Dr. Linthicum, and Director Collier in their individual capacities. (Dkt. No. 22 at 1-22).
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge's] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection [has been] made.” After conducting this de novo review, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id.; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).
The Court has carefully considered de novo those portions of the M&R to which objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations for plain error. Finding no error, the Court accepts the M&R and adopts it as the opinion of the Court. It is therefore ordered that Magistrate Judge Libby's M & R (Dkt. 18) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety as the holding of the Court.
It is SO ORDERED.