Loften v. Warren et al

Filing 43

ORDER overruling objections and adopting the magistrate judge's 39 Report and Recommendation. Signed by District Judge Ron Clark on 3/14/2018. (bjc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
JAMES ERIC LOFTEN

§

VS.

§

JOE WARREN, ET AL.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14cv243

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff James Eric Loften, an inmate confined at the Eastham Unit of the Texas Department
of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled civil
rights lawsuit. The court previously referred this matter to the Honorable Keith F. Giblin, United
States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable orders of this
court.

The Magistrate Judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge recommending the lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 4(m).
The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge, along with the record and pleadings. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and
Recommendation.
The court has conducted a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and
the applicable law. After careful consideration, the court is of the opinion the objections are without
merit. As plaintiff paid the filing fee, he is responsible for serving the defendants. Plaintiff has been
provided with summonses for the purpose of service. However, the record in this matter does not
indicate any of the defendants have been served with process. In his objections, plaintiff does not
demonstrate that service has been accomplished.
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 shall be entered dismissing this lawsuit. If plaintiff wishes to have this case
reinstated, he may do so by providing proof of service within 60 days of the date set forth below.

So Ordered and Signed
Mar 14, 2018