Lynn v. Staff at the Telford Unit

Filing 43

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 39 and granting 38 Motion to Dismiss filed by Sean Lynn. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 5/17/13. (bas, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
SEAN LYNN

§

v.

§

ANGIE RICKS, ET AL.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12cv114

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff Sean Lynn, 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.
On April 9, 2013, Lynn filed a motion asking that his lawsuit be dismissed. On April 10,
2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the motion to dismiss be granted and
that the lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice. Lynn received a copy of this Report on April 15,
2013, 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 unobjected-to 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 concluded that 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

1

(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. 39) is hereby ADOPTED as
the opinion of the District Court. It is further
.
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal (docket no. 38) is GRANTED
and the above-styled civil action be and hereby is DISMISSED without prejudice on the motion of
the Plaintiff. 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 17th day of May, 2013.

____________________________________
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2