Tipton v. Director TDCJ-CID

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 14 Report and Recommendation. The above-styled civil action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT and all motions pending in this civil action are hereby DENIED. Signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 9/26/2018. (slo, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
CHARLTON REED TIPTON

§

v.

§

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17cv147

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
This lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff Charlton Tipton was originally a request for injunctive
relief challenging the conditions of confinement at the Telford Unit of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division. The motion was severed out of the case in
which it was originally filed and transferred to the Texarkana Division of the Eastern District of
Texas, wherein the Telford Unit is located. 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 sole relief sought by Plaintiff was a transfer to another unit within TDCJ-CID. After this
lawsuit was filed, Plaintiff was transferred to another unit. TDCJ-CID records show Plaintiff is
currently at the Michael Unit.
After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending the
lawsuit be dismissed as moot. See Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir. 2001). However,
the Magistrate Judge by separate order also provided Plaintiff with an opportunity to amend his
complaint. No amended complaint has been filed.
Plaintiff received a copy of the Magistrate Judge’s Report on September 6, 2018, 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
1

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 that 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. 14) is ADOPTED as the opinion
of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS
MOOT. Finally, it is
ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action are hereby
DENIED.

SIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 26th day of September, 2018.

____________________________________
RODNEY GILSTRAP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2