Robinson v. Stephens et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 82 Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge. ORDERED that the Defendant William Stephens motion to dismiss (docket no. 76) is GRANTED. ORDERED that the Plaintiffs state law claim of assault is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 9/14/2017. (gsg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHAUN LYNN ROBINSON
WILLIAM STEPHENS, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:14cv701
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff Marshaun Robinson, a former prisoner of the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, Correctional Institutions Division 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.
Robinson raised a number of claims including excessive use of force by an officer named
Elkins (including a state law claim of assault), false or improper disciplinary cases, theft of his
property, inadequate investigation of his claims by prison officials, and a false accusation of assault
by an officer named Oliver. An evidentiary hearing was conducted and one of the Defendants,
TDCJ-CID Director William Stephens, was ordered to answer the lawsuit and has filed a motion to
dismiss, to which Robinson filed a response.
After review of the pleadings, testimony, and records, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
recommending that the lawsuit be dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. The Magistrate Judge also recommended that Stephens’ motion to dismiss
be granted. Finally, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Robinson’s state law claim of assault
be dismissed without prejudice, with the statute of limitations tolled until 30 days after the dismissal
of this lawsuit.
A copy of this Report was sent to Robinson at his last known address by regular and certified
mail, 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 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
ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (docket no. 82) is ADOPTED as the
opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for
purposes of proceeding in forma pauperis as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. It is further
ORDERED that the Defendant William Stephens’ motion to dismiss (docket no. 76) is
GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s state law claim of assault is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, with the statute of limitations tolled for a period of 30 days following the date of
entry of the final judgment in this action. Finally, it is
ORDERED that any and all other motions which may be pending in this civil action are
So Ordered and Signed
Sep 14, 2017
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?