Barnes v. Unnamed Defendant

Filing 125

MEMORANDUM ORDER overruling objections and adopting 114 Report and Recommendation. Order also denying 123 Motion for evidentiary hearing. Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 6/26/17. (tkd, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION GEORGEBAY BARNES § VS. § UNNAMED DEFENDANTS, et al., § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-18 MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff, Georgebay Barnes, a prisoner formerly confined at the Mark Stiles Unit, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several defendants. 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 defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such order, along with the record, and pleadings. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. This requires a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After careful consideration, the Court finds the objections lacking in merit.1 Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate through competent summary judgment evidence that there is a genuine dispute of material fact. Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his claims of a failure to protect and placement in administrative segregation. Plaintiff has also not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances that would warrant waiver of the exhaustion requirement. Finally, 1 The bulk of plaintiff’s objections state he seeks the assistance of either a federal or state prosecutor. In addition, plaintiff argues the findings of the Magistrate Judge in the Report and Recommendation are “unjust” and are the result of judicial misconduct. Plaintiff also requests a hearing before the District Judge. plaintiff has not demonstrated the defendants were personally involved in the alleged constitutional violations. 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. Plaintiff’s motion for evidentiary hearing (docket entry no. 123) is also denied. SIGNED this the 26 day of June, 2017. ____________________________ Thad Heartfield United States District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?