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, )

Download PDF
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

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?