Rogers v. Rupert et al
ORDER ADOPTING 11 Report and Recommendations. This civil action is DISMISSED as frivolous with prejudice as to its refiling in federal court, but without prejudice as to any claims in state court or through the administrative processes of TDCJ-CID which Rogers may elect to pursue. All motions which may be pending in this action are hereby DENIED. The Clerk shall send a copy of this order to the Administrator of the Strikes List for the Eastern District of Texas. Signed by Judge Leonard Davis on 01/10/12. cc:pltf 1-10-12(mll, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARVIN CARL ROGERS #1214816
WARDEN RUPERT, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:11cv366
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff Marvin Rogers, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C.
§1983 complaining of alleged violations of his constitutional rights in the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division. 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.
Rogers complained about the loss of some personal property after he was sent to another unit
for medical purposes. He indicated that the lost property included a clock radio, toothpaste, a
toothbrush, a hot pot, a night lamp, deodorant, gym shorts, shower slides, his family pictures, a
plastic spoon, a soap dish, and his letters.
After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the
case be dismissed, albeit without prejudice as to any claims which Rogers could assert in the courts
of the State of Texas or through the administrative procedures of TDCJ. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468
U.S. 517, 533 (1984); Murphy v. Collins, 26 F.3d 541, 543-44 (5th Cir. 1994). Rogers received a
copy of this Report on December 2, 2011, 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 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 concluded that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. It is
ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (docket no. 11) is hereby ADOPTED as
the opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the above-styled civil action be and hereby is DISMISSED as frivolous with
prejudice as to its refiling in federal court, but without prejudice as to any claims in state court or
through the administrative processes of TDCJ-CID which Rogers may elect to pursue. It is further
ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby
DENIED. Finally, it is
ORDERED that the Clerk shall send a copy of this order to the Administrator of the Strikes
List for the Eastern District of Texas.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 10th day of January, 2012.
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?