Copeland v. Texas Dept of Human Resources

Filing 58

ORDER adopting 56 Report and Recommendation. Ordered that pltf's 54 Motion for Reconsideration and 55 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings are both denied. Signed by District Judge Ron Clark on 12/18/17. (tkd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
CURTIS COPELAND

§

v.

§

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
RESOURCES, ET AL.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16cv1048

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND DENYING MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
AND FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
The Plaintiff Curtis Copeland, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42
U.S.C. §1983 complaining of alleged violations of his constitutional rights. This Court referred the
case 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 lawsuit was dismissed on July 6, 2017, based upon the expiration of the statute of
limitations. On September 11, 2017, Copeland filed a motion for relief from judgment, followed
by a letter motion docketed as a motion for judgment on the pleadings on October 19, 2017. Neither
of these motions referred to the statute of limitations or otherwise discussed the basis for the
dismissal of the lawsuit.
On October 31, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the motions
for relief from judgment and for judgment on the pleadings be denied. Copeland received a copy
of this Report on November 6, 2017, 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

1

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. 56) is ADOPTED as the
opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s motions for relief from judgment (docket no. 54) and for
judgment on the pleadings (docket no. 55) are DENIED.

So Ordered and Signed
Dec 18, 2017

2