Green v. Young
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 24 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 3/21/2017. (slo, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SCOTT YOUNG, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15cv21
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff Dwight Green, a prisoner formerly confined in the Federal Correctional
Institution in Texarkana, filed this civil action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the
Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) complaining of
alleged denials of his constitutional rights. This Court referred the case 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 named
Defendants are Warden Scott Young and Unit Manager Brad Rosiek.
Green complained of false entries being made in his prison files as well as harassment,
retaliation, and a false disciplinary case from Rosiek. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss or
for summary judgment arguing Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, he has not
stated a claim upon which relief may be granted, and his claims are barred by qualified immunity.
The Defendants furnished evidence outside the pleadings and the Magistrate Judge properly
construed the motion as one for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d).
Green did not file a response to the motion for summary judgment. After review of the
pleadings and the summary judgment evidence, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending
the motion for summary judgment be granted on the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies
and the lawsuit dismissed without prejudice. Green received a copy of this Report on February 14,
2017, 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 proposed 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 the Report of the Magistrate Judge (docket no. 24) is ADOPTED as the opinion
of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED the Defendants’ motion to dismiss or for summary judgment (docket no. 22)
is GRANTED and the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Finally, it is
ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby
SIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 21st day of March, 2017.
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?