Robinson v. UTMB et al

Filing 57

MEMORANDUM ORDER adopting 48 Report and Recommendation and granting 40 Motion to Dismiss filed by Duyen Thanh Bui, Lori Walker. Signed by District Judge Michael J. Truncale on 3/25/24. (TKD)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
SCOTT RODNEY ROBINSON, JR.

§

VS.

§

UTMB, ET AL.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:21cv494

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Scott Rodney Robinson, Jr., an inmate at the Pack I Unit of the Texas Department
of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, brought the above-styled
lawsuit.
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 granting the motion to dismiss filed by defendants Lori Walker
and Duyen Bui.
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 allegations fail to rise to the level of a constitutional
violation. Further, to the extent plaintiff’s objections may be liberally construed as a motion to
amend the complaint, plaintiff’s motion lacks merit. In this case, plaintiff previously amended his

complaint in response to written questions propounded by the magistrate judge. Thus, plaintiff was
provided an opportunity to submit an amended pleading containing a more detailed factual
discussion explaining his basis of recovery against the defendants.
Rule 15(a)(2) which states “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires” is
not without limitation. The decision to allow amendment of a party’s pleadings is within the
discretion of the court. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Rosenblatt v. United Way of
Greater Houston, 607 F. 3d 413, 419 (5th Cir. 2010). Here, plaintiff was previously provided an
opportunity to amend his complaint and put forth his best case. Additionally, plaintiff did not obtain
the defendants’ consent to amend his complaint. Plaintiff’s current request to amend comes only
after the case has been pending for more than two years and after the magistrate judge recommended
granting the defendants’ motion. Plaintiff did not seek to amend his complaint during the pendency
of the defendants’ motion to dismiss. In light of the undue delay and previous failure to cure any
deficiency by plaintiff, as well as the undue prejudice to the defendants, plaintiff’s motion to amend
is denied.
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. It
is therefore
ORDERED that the defendants’ motion to dismiss [Dkt. 40] is GRANTED.
SIGNED this 25th day of March, 2024.

2

____________________________
Michael J. Truncale
United States District Judge