Morton v. Chambers et al

Filing 8

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 6 Report and Recommendation. It is ORDERED the 6 Report of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is ORDERED the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE on the Plaintiffs motion; ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action are hereby DENIED. Signed by District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III on 9/18/2019. (slo, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
JONATHAN MORTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CURTIS E CHAMBERS, et al.;
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-CV-00075-RWS

ORDER
The Plaintiff Jonathan Morton, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 complaining of alleged violations of his constitutional rights during his confinement
in the Gregg County Jail. 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.
Morton filed a motion for voluntary dismissal of this lawsuit. Docket No. 4. The
Magistrate Judge issued a Report (Docket No. 6) recommending this motion be granted. TDCJ
records show Morton was released from prison on October 5, 2018, but he has not provided the
Court with his current mailing address. A copy of the Magistrate Judge’s Report was sent to
Plaintiff at his last address on record, return receipt requested, but no objections have been
received. See Docket No. 7. Accordingly, he is not entitled to de novo review by the District
Judge of those findings, conclusions and recommendations, and except upon grounds of plain
error, he is barred from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions
accepted and adopted by the District Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Douglass v. United Services
Auto. Assoc., 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the Report of the
Magistrate Judge and agrees with the Report of the Magistrate Judge. See United States v. Raddatz,
447 U.S. 667, 683 (1980) (“[T]he statute permits the district court to give to the magistrate’s
proposed findings of fact and recommendations ‘such weight as [their] merit commands and the
sound discretion of the judge warrants, . . .’ ”) (quoting Mathews v. Weber, 23 U.S. 261, 275

.
(1976)). It is accordingly
ORDERED the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 6) is ADOPTED as the
opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE on
the Plaintiff’s motion. Finally, it is
ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action are hereby
DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 18th day of September, 2019.

____________________________________
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2