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, )

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