Rowe v. Bowie County Correctional Center
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 8 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 10/22/2013. (sm, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DAVID DARNELL ROWE
BOWIE COUNTY CORRECTIONAL
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13cv78
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff David Rowe, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C.
§1983 complaining of alleged violations of his constitutional rights. 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. The only named Defendant is the Bowie County Correctional Center.
Rowe complained of a slip and fall which he suffered in the Bowie County Correctional
Center on September 22, 2011. He was summoned to the infirmary for a blood pressure check, but
the last set of stairs were wet and he slipped all the way down to the bottom. Officers called for
paramedics and Rowe was taken by ambulance to the local free-world hospital, where he was
examined and X-rays taken. Rowe states pain medication was prescribed for him, but he never
received it. He received a disciplinary case over the incident, but the case was dropped.
After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report on July 31, 2013,
recommending dismissal of the lawsuit as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted. The Magistrate Judge observed the Bowie County Correctional Center is a non-jural
entity and cannot be sued in its own name. The Magistrate Judge also stated Rowe failed to show
he was the victim of deliberate indifference to his safety or his medical needs. Nor did Rowe show
any harm because of receiving a disciplinary case which was later dropped.
Rowe did not file objections per se to the Magistrate Judge’s Report. On August 21, 2013,
Rowe filed a “supplemental complaint,” and August 26, 2013, he filed a “motion for judgment.”
Both of these pleadings simply repeat the allegations of the original complaint; Rowe states he fell
down the stairs and was taken to the hospital, where he was examined and received a prescription
for pain medication which was not filled. He refers to the disciplinary case which was dropped and
states he wants all of his medical bills paid and $10,000.00 in damages. Even construing the
supplemental complaint and the motion for judgment as objections to the Report, neither of these
show the Magistrate Judge’s findings or conclusions were in error.
The Court has conducted a careful de novo review of the pleadings in this case, including the
original and amended complaints, the Report of the Magistrate Judge, and the Plaintiff’s
supplemental complaint and motion for judgment, which have been construed as objections to the
Report. Upon such de novo review, the Court has concluded that the Report of the Magistrate Judge
is correct and the Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. It is accordingly
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s objections are overruled and the Report of the Magistrate
Judge (docket no. 8) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the above-styled civil action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. It is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall send a copy of this opinion to the Administrator of the Three
Strikes List for the Eastern District of Texas. Finally, it is
ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby
It is SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 22nd day of October, 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?