Bridges v. Page et al

Filing 35

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT. It is accordingly ORDERED the Report of the Magistrate Judge (docket no. 34) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is furth er ORDERED the Defendants motion for summary judgment (docket no. 33) is GRANTED and the above civil action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action are hereby DENIED. Signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 08/13/19. (lfs, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
DRACO BRIDGES

§

v.

§

ROBERT PAGE, ET AL.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16cv180

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff Draco Bridges, 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 named Defendants are Wardens Robert Page and Brian Rodeen, Major Eric
Nelson, Captain Sherdona Walker, Lt. Darrell Charpentier, Lt. Denise Jefferson, Lt. Kerry Manning,
Officer Tina Washington, Officer Greg Scott, Nurse Regina Lynch, and Nurse Michelle Arnold, all
of whom are officials at the Bowie County Correctional Center.
I. Background
Plaintiff raised six claims concerning the conditions of confinement at the Bowie County
Correctional Center, including: (1) jail personnel use inmates in the kitchen to prepare and serve
food without testing these inmates for contagious diseases such as hepatitis C, HIV/AIDS,
tuberculosis, and others; (2) there are officers on staff at the Bowie County Correctional Center who
had been terminated from other jobs for cruelty to inmates, violence, and use of excessive force
leading to the injury and even death of other prisoners; (3) the recreation yard is full of “trip
hazards” such as old pieces of fence and concrete protruding above the ground; (4) there is black
mold on the walls of Delta Deck and in the barracks; (5) there is no filtration system and Plaintiff
1

breathes diesel exhaust from all of the trains which run by the jail day and night; and (6) when he
was transported to Bowie County from the Arkansas Department of Corrections on July 31, 2015,
his hands and legs were cuffed and chained. On the morning of August 2, he awoke with the outside
fingers on his hands numb and without feeling. The doctor did not help him and prescribed
medication he was already taking.
The Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, together with summary judgment
evidence in the form of affidavits from Nurse Arnold and Warden James McCormick. Plaintiff 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 and the lawsuit
dismissed. A copy of this Report was sent to Plaintiff at his last known address with an
acknowledgment card, but this card was not returned to the Court. While the officials at the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice and the Bowie County Correctional Center are familiar with the
Court’s procedure of sending acknowledgment cards and normally return these cards promptly, the
Court has found that prison and jail officials in out of state facilities frequently do not return these
cards. As a general rule, the placement of a properly directed letter in the U.S. mail creates a
presumption that it reached its destination in the usual time and was actually received by the person
to whom it was addressed. Faciane v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, – F.3d –, 2019 WL
3334654 (5th Cir., July 25, 2019). No objections to the Report have been received; accordingly, the
Plaintiff 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 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 record 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
2

(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. 34) is ADOPTED as the opinion
of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (docket no. 33) is GRANTED
and the above civil action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further
ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action are hereby
DENIED.

So Ordered this
Aug 13, 2019

3