Howard v. Prince

Filing 53

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT for 51 Report and Recommendation. It is ORDERED the Defendants motion for summary judgment (docket no. 44) is GRANTED and the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action are DENIED. Signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 3/14/2019. (slo, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
NORRIS HOWARD

§

v.

§

SHERIFF JAMES PRINCE

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18cv29

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff Norris Howard, 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 sole named Defendant is Bowie County Sheriff James Prince.
Plaintiff complained he was unlawfully confined in the Bowie County Correctional Center
when he is not a prisoner of the State of Texas and has no charges or convictions from the State of
Texas. Sheriff Prince filed a motion for summary judgment stating Plaintiff is a prisoner of the State
of Arkansas being housed in Bowie County under a contract between the State of Arkansas and
LaSalle Southwest Corrections, the corporation which operates the Bowie County Correctional
Center. Plaintiff filed a reply arguing his confinement in Texas is unconstitutional.
After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending the
motion for summary judgment be granted and the lawsuit dismissed with prejudice. A copy of this
Report was sent to Plaintiff but no objections have been received; 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

1

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. 51) is ADOPTED as the opinion
of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (docket no. 44) is GRANTED
and the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further
ORDERED any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action, specifically
including but not limited to the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (docket no. 13) are
DENIED.

SIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 14th day of March, 2019.

____________________________________
RODNEY GILSTRAP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2