Covarrubias v. Wallace et al

Filing 57

ORDER ADOPTING 53 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; granting in part and denying in part 31 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by John Wilson, Gabriel Obrigbo, Victoria Wallace. GRANTED only as to any claims for monetary damages which are brought again st the Defendants in their official capacities. Such claims are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice as barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. The Defendants' motion for summary judgment is in all other respects DENIED. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 08/05/13. (mll, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
JAIME COVARRUBIAS

§

v.

§

VICTORIA WALLACE, ET AL.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:12cv156

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff Jaime Covarrubias, 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. There are three Defendants remaining in the lawsuit - Victoria Wallace, John Wilson, and
Gabriel Obrigbo.
Covarrubias’ lawsuit concerns a use of force incident which occurred on April 26, 2010. The
Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment based on their affidavits concerning the
incident and have invoked the defenses of qualified and Eleventh Amendment immunity.
Covarrubias filed a response arguing that the Defendants’ version of the facts is incorrect and that
the Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. He did not contest the claim of Eleventh
Amendment immunity.
After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted as to any claims for monetary damages
brought against the Defendants in their official capacities, because such claims are barred by

1

Eleventh Amendment immunity. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that the Defendants’
motion for summary judgment be denied in all other respects.
Copies of the Magistrate Judge’s Report were provided to the parties but no objections have
been received; accordingly, the parties are 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. 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 that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (docket no. 53) is hereby ADOPTED as
the opinion of the District Court. It is further
.

ORDERED that the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (docket no. 31) is hereby

GRANTED only as to any claims for monetary damages which are brought against the Defendants
in their official capacities. Such claims are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice as barred by
Eleventh Amendment immunity. It is further
ORDERED that the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is in all other respects
DENIED.
It is SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 5th day of August, 2013.

____________________________________
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2