Opinion
Civil Action 2:22-CV-00152
05-11-2023
JEWELL THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. JERRY SANCHEZ, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION
DAVID S. MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock's Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R"). (D.E. 20). The M&R recommends the following:
• The Court retain Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against Defendants Dr. Isaac Kwarteng ("Dr. Kwarteng") in his individual capacity for monetary relief and in his official capacity for injunctive relief;
• The Court retain Plaintiffs Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Rehabilitation Act ("RA") claims against the State of Texas and Defendants Dr. Kwarteng, Warden Jerry Sanchez ("Warden Sanchez"), and Texas Department of Criminal Justice Director Bobby Lumpkin ("Director Lumpkin") in their official capacities; '
o The Court dismiss Plaintiffs § 1983 claims for money damages against Dr. Kwarteng and Warden Sanchez in their official capacities without prejudice as barred by the Eleventh Amendment;
• The Court dismiss Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against Warden Sanchez with prejudice as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted;
• The Court dismiss Plaintiffs equal protection claims against Dr. Kwarteng and Warden Sanchez in their individual and official capacities with prejudice as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and
• The Court dismiss Plaintiffs ADA and RA claims against Dr. Kwarteng, Warden Sanchez, and Director Lumpkin in their individual capacities with prejudice as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.(D.E. 20, p. 22).
The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge's M&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); General Order No. 2002-13. No objection has been filed. When no timely objection has been filed, the district court need only determine whether the Magistrate Judge's M&R is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Badaiki v. Schlumberger Holdings Corp., 512 F.Supp.3d 741, 743-44 (S.D. Tex. 2021) (Eskridge, J.).
Having reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, and finding that the M&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 20). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following:
• The Court RETAINS Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against Defendants Dr. Kwarteng in his individual capacity for monetary relief and in his official capacity for injunctive relief;
• The Court RETAINS Plaintiff s ADA and RA claims against the State of Texas and Defendants Dr. Kwarteng, Warden Sanchez, and Director Lumpkin in their official capacities;
• The Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs § 1983 claims for money damages against Dr. Kwarteng and Warden Sanchez in their official capacities without prejudice;
• The Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against Warden Sanchez with prejudice as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted;
• The Court DISMISS Plaintiffs equal protection claims against Dr. Kwarteng and Warden Sanchez in their individual and official capacities with prejudice as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and
• The Court DISMISS Plaintiffs ADA and RA claims against Dr. Kwarteng, Warden Sanchez, and Director Lumpkin in their individual capacities with prejudice as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.
SO ORDERED.