Mann v. Director TDCJ - CID et al

Filing 207

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 186 Report and Recommendations. Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Donna Force and Jill Serralde are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and these Defendants are dismissed as parties to this case. The Court denies 173 Motion for Summary Judgment as moot. Signed by District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle on 3/14/2021. (efarris, )

Case 6:16-cv-01315-JDK-KNM Document 207 Filed 03/15/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 1222

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
JEFFREY CHARLES MANN,
Plaintiff,
v.
LORIE DAVIS, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 6:16-cv-1315-JDK-KNM

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ON DEFENDANTS FORCE AND SERRALDE
Plaintiff Jeffrey Charles Mann, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice
inmate, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The case was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.
On November 9, 2020, Judge Mitchell issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Donna Force and Jill
Serralde be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and the pleading standards set out in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Docket No. 186. Judge Mitchell further recommended that the
Court deny these Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based upon exhaustion
of administrative remedies (Docket No. 173) as moot. Plaintiff objected. Docket
No. 198.
Where a party timely objects to the Report and Recommendation, the Court
1

Case 6:16-cv-01315-JDK-KNM Document 207 Filed 03/15/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 1223

reviews the objected-to findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire
record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United
Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other
grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from
ten to fourteen days).
In his objections, Plaintiff argues that: (1) Defendants Force and Serralde
(among others) were in default and failed to comply with court orders, (2) he had not
received all the discovery to which he believed he was entitled, (3) the Court did not
adequately address all of his pending motions, (4) the Court has already denied a
previous motion to dismiss by Force and Serralde, (5) his pleadings meet pre-Iqbal
pleading standards set out in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957), overruled by
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 561–63 (2007), and (6) he was thwarted
from seeking relief through the prison grievance procedure.
The Court need not consider whether Plaintiff’s pleadings met the Conley
standard because as the Magistrate Judge correctly determined, Plaintiff did not
state a claim upon which relief may be granted against Force and Serralde under the
current pleading standards established in Iqbal and Twombly.

Although

Plaintiff complains about a purported lack of discovery, the Supreme Court has
made clear that the doors of discovery are not unlocked for a plaintiff armed
only with conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Micro Motion Inc. v. Kane Steel
Co., Inc., 894 F.2d 1318, 1327 (5th Cir. 1989) (discovery rules are not to find out

2

Case 6:16-cv-01315-JDK-KNM Document 207 Filed 03/15/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 1224

if a party has any basis for a claim); Russell v. Choicepoint Servs. Inc., 302 F.Supp.2d
654, 671 (E.D. La. 2004) (discovery is not intended as a fishing expedition permitting
the speculative pleading of a case first and then pursuing discovery to support it
(citing Zuk v. E. Pa. Psychiatric Inst., 103 F.3d 294, 299 (3rd Cir. 1996))). That a
previous motion to dismiss was denied is irrelevant because 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
specifies that a claim may be dismissed at any time if the Court determines that it is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. Plaintiff’s remaining objections do not address the substance of the Report
—namely, that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.
Having conducted a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report, Plaintiff’s
objections, and the record in this case, the Court has determined that the Report
of the Magistrate Judge is correct, and Plaintiff’s objections are without
merit. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report of the Magistrate Judge
(Docket No. 186) as the opinion of the District Court. Plaintiff’s claims against
Defendants Donna Force and Jill Serralde are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and these Defendants
are dismissed as parties to this case. Further, Defendants Force and Serralde’s
motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 173) is DENIED as moot.
The dismissal of these claims and Defendants shall have no effect upon the
remaining claims and defendants in the lawsuit.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 14th day of March, 2021.

___________________________________
3
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE