Reid v. Daniels et al

Filing 44

ORDER overruling objections and adopting 27 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 8/10/17. (tkd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
KENNETH ROSHAUN REID

§

VS.

§

C. DANIELS

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14cv414

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Kenneth Roshaun Reid, formerly an inmate at the Federal Correctional Complex
in Beaumont, Texas, proceeding pro se, brought the above-styled lawsuit against C. Daniels, the
warden at the Beaumont facility.
The court referred this matter 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 this action be dismissed 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 filed pursuant to such referral, along with the record and pleadings. 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. For
the reasons set forth in the Report, plaintiff’s claims against defendant C. Daniels are frivolous and
fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

In his objections, plaintiff asserts for the first time that the defendant failed to train the officer
plaintiff alleges assaulted him on September 6, 2013. However, plaintiff made no mention of his
failure-to-train claim against defendant Daniels in his complaint or any of the previous amendments.
As plaintiff’s objections were not filed until March 28, 2016 and the claim must have occurred
before the date of the alleged 2013 assault, the claim is barred by the applicable two-year statute of
limitations. Plaintiff’s failure-to-train claim against the warden is separate and distinct from the
alleged use of excessive force claim against the individual officer. Accordingly, the claim does not
relate back to plaintiff’s original claim and is barred by limitations. Therefore, plaintiff may not
amend his previous claim to add any potential claim asserted in his objections.
Further, plaintiff makes no specific allegation as to any training officer Ryan allegedly
received or did not receive. Therefore, plaintiff’s failure-to-train claim is conclusory; thus, the claim
is frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.1
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
recommendations.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 10 day of August, 2017.

___________________________________
Ron Clark, United States District Judge

1
Moreover, it is noted that on page two of his objections, plaintiff indicates he settled his claims concerning the
facts which form the basis of this complaint during 2015 with a monetary Tort Claim settlement which he now contends is
illegal because he claims it was signed under duress. However, absent the settlement agreement being nullified, the continued
prosecution of this action is merely plaintiff’s attempt to disregard or circumvent the previous settlement agreement.