Sanchez v. Allen et al

Filing 35

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 30 Report and Recommendations,. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 10/29/13. (bas, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
EDUARDO SANCHEZ, #873766

§

VS.

§

SHAYLON ALLEN, ET AL.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13cv25

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff Eduardo Sanchez, an inmate confined at the Telford Unit of the Texas prison system,
proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled and numbered civil lawsuit. The complaint was referred to
United States Magistrate Judge Caroline M. Craven, who issued a Report and Recommendation
finding that the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment should be granted. The Plaintiff has filed
objections.
The Plaintiff’s objections initially focused on his retaliation claim. He argued that Defendant
Hilborn retaliated against him in response to a sarcastic comment by him. It should be noted, however,
that the definition of a retaliation claim is limited. The Plaintiff must show that he engaged in a (1)
specific constitutional right, (2) the defendant’s intent to retaliate against the prisoner for his or her
exercise of that right, (3) a retaliatory adverse act, and (4) causation. McDonald v. Stewart, 132 F.3d
225, 231 (5th Cir. 1998). Inmates retain some of their rights under the First Amendment. They have
a right to raise complaints, but such complaints must be raised in proper channels. Morris v. Powell,
449 F.3d 682, 684 (5th Cir. 2006). The Plaintiff’s use of sarcasm was not a complaint that was
presented through proper channels. His use of sarcasm was not a constitutionally protected right. As
such, the facts as presented by the Plaintiff did not give rise to a potentially meritorious civil rights
lawsuit. The Plaintiff also complained about the disciplinary case that was filed against him, but the
punishment that was imposed against him did not involve a constitutionally protected liberty interest.
1

The Report of the Magistrate Judge, which contains her proposed findings of fact and
recommendations for the disposition of such action, has been presented for consideration, and having
made a de novo review of the objections raised by the Plaintiff to the Report, the Court is of the
opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and the objections raised
by the Plaintiff are without merit. Therefore the Court hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of
the Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of the Court. It is accordingly
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (docket entry #30) is ADOPTED. It is
.
further
ORDERED that the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (docket entry #17) is
GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that the complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. It is further
ORDERED that all motions not previously ruled on are DENIED.
It is SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 29th day of October, 2013.

____________________________________
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2