Duvall v. Burns et al

Filing 44

MEMORANDUM ORDER adopting 42 Report and Recommendation. Ordered that the Defendant's 39 Motion for summary judgment on the merits is granted and the above-styled civil action is dismissed with prejudice. Ordered that any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action are hereby denied. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 1/6/2017. (bjc, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
STEVEN LEE DUVALL

§

v.

§

L. BURNS, ET AL.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:15cv564

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff Steven Duvall, a 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 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. The named Defendants are
jail officers Lawrence Burns, Leo Martinez, and Kelly Pierce.
Duvall complained of an incident in which he was allegedly confined in a separation cell
over the weekend of April 11-12, 2015, with the water shut off. The Defendants filed motions for
summary judgment based on exhaustion of administrative remedies and on the merits, and Duvall
filed a response only to the motion for summary judgment based on exhaustion of administrative
remedies.
After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the merits be granted and the lawsuit dismissed with
prejudice. Copies of the Magistrate Judge’s Report were sent and re-sent to Duvall at his last known
address, return receipt requested, 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,
1

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. 42) is ADOPTED as the
opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the merits (docket no.
39) is GRANTED and the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is
further
ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action are hereby
DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 6 day of January, 2017.

___________________________________
Ron Clark, United States District Judge

2