Harris v. Thaler et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that this action be dismissed pursuant to 28 USC 1915(g). Signed by Judge Marcia A. Crone on 2/24/12. (mrp, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DUANE B. HARRIS,
Plaintiff,
versus
RICK THALER, et al.,
Defendants.

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-124

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND
ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Duane B. Harris, an inmate confined at the Stiles Unit of the Texas Department
of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, brought this lawsuit
against nineteen prison employees complaining of the conditions of his confinement.
The court referred this matter to the Honorable Keith F. Giblin, United States Magistrate
Judge, at Beaumont, Texas for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court.
The Magistrate Judge recommends this action be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such referral, along with the record, pleadings and all available
evidence. Plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. This
requires 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 Plaintiff’s objections are without merit.
Plaintiff complains that nurses at the Stiles Unit failed to follow orders given by a physician not
located at the prison and decided to medicate him their own way. Additionally, plaintiff complains
of assault and retaliation by the defendants. The alleged assault consisted of defendant Shoemaker
pointing his finger at plaintiff’s chest and giving plaintiff a “chest bump.” Further, plaintiff
claims defendant Harrell, the Grievance Coordinator, threatened to retaliate against him for filing
grievances by having him placed on grievance restriction. While plaintiff’s complaints are

numerous and concern many defendants, such allegations are factually insufficient to demonstrate
he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed the complaint. See Banos
v. O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 884 (5th Cir. 1998). Further, any fear of future harm is purely
speculative. Section 1915(g) therefore bars plaintiff from proceeding further with this lawsuit on
an in forma pauperis basis.
ORDER
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED.

The findings of fact and

conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and the report of the magistrate judge is
ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate

.
judge’s recommendation.
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 7th day of September, 2004.
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 24th day of February, 2012.

________________________________________
MARCIA A. CRONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2