King v. Unknown Parties

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge Marcia A. Crone on 5/27/14. (mrp, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

VERNON KING, JR.,
Plaintiff,
versus
UNKNOWN PARTIES, et al.,
Defendants.

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-108

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND
ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Vernon King, Jr., a prisoner confined at the Estelle 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 unidentified defendants employed at the
Stiles and Estelle Units of TDCJ-CID.
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 has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge. The magistrate judge recommends denying plaintiff leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and dismissing the action without prejudice.
The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge, along with the record, pleadings, and all available evidence. 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. As the magistrate judge recommended, the claims that arose at
the Estelle Unit should be dismissed without prejudice to plaintiff’s ability to pursue his claims in
the appropriate venue. The claims that arose at the Stiles Unit should be dismissed because
plaintiff failed to show that he was in imminent danger of serious harm when he filed this action.
Furthermore, and in the alternative, the court notes that the claims that arose at the Stiles
Unit are barred by the statute of limitations. The limitations period for a § 1983 action is
determined by the forum state’s general personal injury limitations period, which is two years in
Texas. Whitt v. Stephens County, 529 F.3d 278, 282 (5th Cir. 2008). Because the events at issue
in this case took place in 2009, the statute of limitations expired more than two years ago.
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. Plaintiff is DENIED leave to proceed in forma pauperis. A final judgment will be
entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
Signed this date.
May 27, 2014

2