Caldwell v. Thaler et al

Filing 36

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 34 Report and Recommendations and ORDERED that 30 Motion be Granted and action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 11/26/2013. (sm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
ROBERT LESLIE CALDWELL

§

v.

§

RICK THALER, ET AL.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12cv24

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff Robert Caldwell, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42
U.S.C. §1983 complaining of alleged violations of his constitutional rights in the Texas Department
of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division. This Court ordered that the case be referred
to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended
Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate
Judges.
As Defendants in his lawsuit, Caldwell named TDCJ-CID Director Rick Thaler, Warden
Dawn Grounds, Major Rodger McDonald, Captain William Gaddis, Captain Dennis Martin, Lt.
Sidney Arnold, and counsel substitute Deborah Abernathy.1 Of these defendants, Thaler, Grounds,
and Abernathy have previously been dismissed.
Caldwell raises claims concerning a disciplinary case which he received on December 28,
2010, as well as complaints concerning the conditions of confinement on 11 Building, where he was
placed in lockup after receiving the disciplinary case. The Defendants filed a motion for summary

1

sheet.

Caldwell identified Abernathy as “Abernator,” and her name appears this way on the docket

judgment, along with competent summary judgment evidence, and Caldwell did not file a response
to this motion.
After review of the pleadings and the summary judgment evidence, the Magistrate Judge
issued a Report recommending the motion for summary judgment be granted and the lawsuit be
dismissed. Caldwell received a copy of this Report but filed no objections thereto; accordingly, he
is barred from de novo review by the district judge of those findings, conclusions, and
recommendations and, except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjectedto factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass v.
United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the Report of the Magistrate Judge.
Upon such review, the Court has determined the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See
United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918, 109 S.Ct. 3243
(1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is
“clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”). It is accordingly
ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (docket no. 34) is hereby ADOPTED
as the opinion of the District Court. It is further
.
ORDERED that the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (docket no. 30) be and
hereby is GRANTED and that the above-styled civil action is hereby DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE. It is further
ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby
DENIED.
It is SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 26th day of November, 2013.

____________________________________
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE