Matthews v. Rhymes et al
MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The report of the magistrate judge 9 is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. The above-styled civil action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby DENIED. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 05/05/15. (mll, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LINDA RHYMES, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:14cv784
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff Dedrick Matthews, 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.
Matthews complained that the Smith County District Clerk failed to have a copy of his state
habeas petition delivered to the district attorney’s office for a response. After review of the
pleadings, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the lawsuit be dismissed as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Matthews 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 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 and evidence 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. 9) is ADOPTED as the
opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
§1915(e)(2)(B). Finally, it is
ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby
It is SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 5th day of May, 2015.
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
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?