Wood v. TDCJ-CID Rehabilitation & Re-Entry Program Division et al

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM ORDER overruling plaintiff's objections and adopting the magistrate judge's 15 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 9/26/2016. (bjc, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
DAMON LEE WOOD

§

VS.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:10-CV-182

TDCJ-CID REHABILITATION & RE-ENTRY§
PROGRAM DIVISION, ET AL.
MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Damon Lee Wood, a prisoner previously confined at the Hightower Unit of the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID), proceeding
pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the TDCJ-CID
Rehabilitation and Re-entry Program Division, Madeline Ortiz, Joseph A. Bon-Jorno, Schuwan A.
Dorsey, Kimm M. Perez, Linda Tanner and Walter B. Connealy.
The court ordered that this matter be referred to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States
Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of
this court. The magistrate judge recommends dismissing the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge, along with the record and the pleadings. Plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate
judge’s Report and Recommendation.
The court has conducted a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and
the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After careful consideration, the court concludes the
objections are without merit. An individual who was not convicted of a sex offense is entitled to

some process before being required to register as a sex offender or participate in therapy. Williams
v. Ballare, 466 F.3d 330, 332 (5th Cir. 2006). Because plaintiff was convicted of a sex offense, the
parole board did not infringe on a liberty interest by imposing sex offender special conditions on his
parole, including the requirement that he participate in a Sex Offender Treatment Program prior to
release. Jennings v. Owens, 602 F.3d 652, 659 (5th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff’s claim that he was denied
parole because of his non-participation in a Sex Offender Treatment Program is not cognizable in
a civil rights action. Sanders v. Smith, 111 F. App’x 752, 752 (5th Cir. 2004).
ORDER
Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections (document no. 20) are OVERRULED. The findings of
fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and the report of the magistrate judge
(document no. 15) is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with
the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
SIGNED this the 26 day of September, 2016.

____________________________
Thad Heartfield
United States District Judge

2