Back v. TDCJ-CID et al
MEMORANDUM ORDER adopting 28 and 26 Report and Recommendations. Ordered that the Defendants' motions to dismiss (doc no.'s 17,18, and 19) are granted and the civil action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Ordered that any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby denied. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 3/28/2017. (bjc, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
ROBERT BACK #01465630
TDCJ-CID, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16cv236
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff Robert Back filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 as well as the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act complaining of alleged violations of his
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. The named Defendants are the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division and the University of Texas
Back complained of the medical care which he received, including the alleged failure to
provide him with bracing for his left leg impairment. The Defendants were ordered to answer the
lawsuit and filed separate motions to dismiss.1 Back filed responses to these motions.
After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued Reports on January 23 and
January 24, 2017, recommending that the motions to dismiss be granted and the lawsuit dismissed.
On February 6, 2017, Back filed a motion for extension of time to file objections to the Reports.
This motion was granted and Back was given until March 7, 2017, in which to object to the
The Defendant TDCJ-CID filed two motions to dismiss, docket no.’s 17 and 18, which are
Magistrate Judge’s Reports; however, no objections have been filed. The parties are therefore
barred from de novo review by the District Judge of the Magistrate Judge’s proposed 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
The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the Reports of the Magistrate Judge.
Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Reports of the Magistrate Judge are 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 Reports of the Magistrate Judge (docket no.’s 26 and 28) are
ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the Defendants’ motions to dismiss (docket no.’s 17, 18, and 19) are
GRANTED and the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. It is further
ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 28th day of March, 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?