Glidden v. Cerliano et al

Filing 43

MEMORANDUM ORDER adopting 41 Report and Recommendation. Ordered that the Defendants' 36 Motion for summary judgment is granted and the civil action is dismissed with prejudice. Ordered that any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby denied. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 8/10/2016. (bjc, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION SHAWN CHRISTIAN GLIDDEN § v. § MAXEY CERLIANO, ET AL. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:14cv894 MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT The Plaintiff Shawn Glidden, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights during his confinement in the Gregg County Jail. 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. Glidden contended that his right to free exercise of religion was violated. The Defendants answered the lawsuit and filed a motion for summary judgment, to which Glidden did not file a response. After review of the pleadings and the summary judgment evidence, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted and the lawsuit dismissed with prejudice. Glidden received a copy of this Report on June 27, 2016, 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). 1 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 therefore ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (docket no. 41) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (docket no. 36) is GRANTED and the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Finally, it is ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby DENIED. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 10 day of August, 2016. ___________________________________ Ron Clark, 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?