Sigleu v. Bell et al
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING 8 Report and Recommendations of the US Magistrate Judge and Entering Final Judgment. It is ORDERED that the civil action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute or to obey an order of the Court. Further, it is ORDERED that the statute of limitations on the claims raised in this lawsuit is SUSPENDED for a period of 60 days following the date of entry of final judgment. The suspension will not affect any claims already barred by the operation of that statute at the time this lawsuit was filed. Any and all motions pending in this action are DENIED. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 2/15/2012. (leh, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
SAMUEL SIGLEU
§
v.
§
M. BELL, ET AL.
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:11cv432
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff Samuel Sigleu, a former inmate of the Intermediate Sanctions Facility
in Henderson, Rusk County, Texas, 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 Magistrate Judge ordered Sigleu to pay the filing fee of $350.00 or to submit an
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis which was accompanied by a certified inmate
trust account data sheet from an authorized official of the facility. The Magistrate Judge also ordered
Sigleu to file an amended complaint setting out a short and plain statement of his claim. When
Sigleu did not comply with either of these orders, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
recommending that the lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice. Because it could not be determined
from the complaint when the incidents complained of occurred, the Magistrate Judge also
recommended that the statute of limitations be suspended for a period of 60 days following the date
of entry of final judgment.
A copy of the Magistrate Judge’s Report was sent to Sigleu at his last known address,
return receipt requested, 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
1
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 accordingly
ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (docket no. 6) 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 without
prejudice for failure to prosecute or to obey an order of the Court. It is further
ORDERED that the statute of limitations on the claims raised in this lawsuit is hereby
SUSPENDED for a period of sixty days following the date of entry of final judgment in this case.
.
The suspension of the statute of limitations will not affect any claims which were already barred by
the operation of that statute at the time that this lawsuit was filed; such claims would remain barred
regardless of any suspension of the limitations period. Finally, it is
ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby
DENIED.
It is SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 15th day of February, 2012.
____________________________________
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
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?