Evans v. Wright

Filing 58

MEMORANDUM ORDER adopting 56 Report and Recommendation and denying 54 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 8/23/16. (tkd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
CARL EVANS

§

v.

§

DR. GARY WRIGHT

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:14cv566

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff Carl Evans, 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.
After the lawsuit was dismissed, Evans filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the
motion be denied. Evans received a copy of this Report 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 unobjectedto 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
1

ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (docket no. 56) is ADOPTED as the
opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgment (docket no. 54) is
DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 23 day of August, 2016.

___________________________________
Ron Clark, United States District Judge

2