Adams v. Franklin et al

Filing 38

MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Signed by District Judge Ron Clark on 1/2/18. (mrp, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
REV. CLARENCE DOUGLAS ADAMS JR.

§

v.

§

MARY FRANKLIN, ET AL.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16cv238

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff Clarence Adams Jr., a former 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. 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. As Defendants, Adams named Lt. K. Harbin, law librarian J. Becraft,
officer Donna Arnold, and food service officers Mary Franklin, Joyce Ortego, and Jennifer Oller.
The Defendants Franklin, Harbin, Becraft, and Oller filed a motion to dismiss which argued
in part that Adams’ claims are moot. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the
motion to dismiss be granted and the lawsuit dismissed as moot. Adams 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 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
1

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. 36) is ADOPTED as the
opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the Defendants’ motion to dismiss (docket no. 33) is GRANTED and the
above-styled civil action is DISMISSED AS MOOT. It is further
ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action are hereby
DENIED.

So Ordered and Signed
Jan 2, 2018

2