Trevino v. Woodberry County Jail et al

Filing 16

ORDER Accepting Report and Recommendation re 14 Report and Recommendation granting 11 the USMS's Motion to Dismiss. All of plaintiff Trevino's claims against the USMS are dismissed. Signed by Judge Mark W Bennett on 1/30/2015. Order/NEF mailed to pro se plaintiff. (src)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
WESTERN DIVISION
RICHARD TREVINO,
No. C14-4051-MWB
Plaintiff,
vs.
WOODBURY
COUNTY
JAIL,
LIEUTENANT PHILLIPS, CARLOS
LNU, UNITED STATES MARSHALS
SERIVCE,
Defendants.

ORDER REGARDING
MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
CONCERNING DEFENDANT
UNITED STATES MARSHALS
SERVICE’S MOTION TO DISMISS

___________________________
I.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

On June 25, 2014, plaintiff Richard Trevino filed a pro se complaint in the
Northern District of Texas. In his complaint, Trevino, an inmate at Federal Correctional
Institute Fort Worth, names as defendants the Woodbury County Jail (“the Jail”),
Lieutenant Phillips, Officer Carlos Last Name Unknown, and the United States Marshals
Service (“the USMS’). Trevino claims that defendants violated his constitutional rights
while he was incarcerated at the Jail and that defendants violated Title II of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12133.
This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Leonard T. Strand
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On October 17, 2014, the USMS filed a motion
to dismiss in which it seeks dismissal of all claims against it. In its motion, the USMS
argues that: (1) Trevino’s claims are frivolous within the meaning of the in forma
pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915; and (2) Trevino has failed to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted because the United States is immune from suit, Trevino

failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and Trevino’s claims are moot. Trevino did
not file a resistance.
Judge Strand issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommends
granting the USMS’s motion to dismiss. Judge Strand found that he was unable to
determine as a matter of law that Trevino’s complaint is frivolous. Thus, he recommends
that the USMS’s motion to dismiss the complaint as frivolous, pursuant to § 1915, be
denied. Report and Recommendation at 6. However, Judge Strand further concluded
that the USMS was protected by sovereign immunity. Thus, Judge Strand concluded that
the USMS was immune from Trevino’s claims and recommended that the USMS’s motion
to dismiss be granted. Report and Recommendation at 10. Judge Strand also concluded
that it was unnecessary to consider the USMS’s argument that it was entitled to dismissal
on the ground that Trevino failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Because the USMS
enjoys sovereign immunity with regard to all of Trevino’s claims, Judge Strand
recommends that this ground be denied as moot. Finally, Judge Strand concluded that
Trevino’s claims for money damages were not moot because of his transfer to the Bureau
of Prisons. Therefore, he recommends that the USMS’s motion to dismiss the complaint
as moot be denied. No objections to Judge Strand’s Report and Recommendation have
been filed.
II.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

I review the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation pursuant to the
statutory standards found in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1):
A judge of the court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further
2

evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2006); see FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b) (stating identical requirements);
N.D. IA. L.R. 7.1 (allowing the referral of dispositive matters to a magistrate judge but
not articulating any standards to review the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation). While examining these statutory standards, the United States Supreme
Court explained:
Any party that desires plenary consideration by the
Article III judge of any issue need only ask. Moreover, while
the statute does not require the judge to review an issue de
novo if no objections are filed, it does not preclude further
review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a
party, under a de novo or any other standard.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154 (1985). Thus, a district court may review de novo
any issue in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation at any time. Id. If a party
files an objection to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, however, the
district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). In the absence of an objection, the district court is not required “to give any
more consideration to the magistrate’s report than the court considers appropriate.”
Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150.
In this case, no objections have been filed, and it appears to me, upon review of
Judge Strand’s findings and conclusions, that there is no ground to reject or modify them.
Therefore, I accept Judge Strand’s Report and Recommendation on the USMS’s motion
to dismiss.

3

III.

CONCLUSION

I accept Judge Strand’s Report and Recommendation and, therefore, grant the
USMS’s motion to dismiss. All of plaintiff Trevino’s claims against the USMS are
dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 30th day of January, 2015.
______________________________________
MARK W. BENNETT
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

4