Mann v. Director TDCJ - CID et al

Filing 231

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 211 Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court hereby DISMISSES Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Lindley without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Signed by District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle on 9/23/2021. (gsg)

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 THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Jeffrey Charles Mann, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice
inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition.
Before the Court is Defendant Donald Eckersley’s motion for summary
judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Docket No. 170.

On

March 4, 2021, Judge Mitchell issued a Report recommending that the Court grant
Defendant Eckersley’s motion and dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against him without
prejudice. Docket No. 201. A copy of this Report was sent to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff
received the Report on March 19, 2021. See Docket No. 208.
Also, on April 12, 2021, Judge Mitchell issued a Report recommending that the
Court dismiss the claims against Defendant Anitra Lindley for failure to state a claim

1

upon which relief may be granted. Docket No. 211. A copy of this Report was sent to
Plaintiff, and Plaintiff received the Report on May 24, 2021. See Docket No. 218.
On June 1, 2021, Judge Mitchell granted Plaintiff’s request for an extension of
time to file objections until July 2, 2021. Docket No. 220. On August 3, 2021,
Judge Mitchell granted an additional extension of time for objections, to August
27, 2021. Docket No. 224. Judge Mitchell’s order granting this second extension
also specified that

no

further

extensions

would

be

granted

except

for

exceptionally good cause. Nonetheless, on August 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed a third
motion for extension of time. Docket No. 230. In his motion, Plaintiff asserts that
he has been prejudiced by mail delays, he has not received a requested docket
sheet, and his legal materials were seized by law library officials on August 24.
He requests an additional five-month extension to file objections, to February 2022.
Regardless of any alleged mail delays, Plaintiff has had three to five months to
file objections. Failure to receive a docket sheet should have no effect on his ability
to object to the Reports. And Plaintiff alleges that law library staff took his legal
materials just three days before his most-recent deadline to object. In short, Plaintiff
has had more than sufficient time to formulate objections. He has failed to show good
cause for a further extension because he has not shown that he acted with reasonable
diligence or that his failure to meet the twice-extended deadline for objections was
the result of excusable neglect. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b); McCarty v. Thaler, 376 F.
App’x 442 (5th Cir. 2010) (no abuse of discretion in denying prisoner’s second motion

2

for extension of time in which to object to a magistrate judge’s report). Accordingly,
the Court will review the Reports without Plaintiff’s objections.
This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de
novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and
Recommendation. 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).
Here, Plaintiff did not object in the prescribed period, despite two lengthy
extensions of time. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for
clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews his legal conclusions to determine
whether they are contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221
(5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a
Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous,
abuse of discretion and contrary to law”).
Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Reports and the record in this case,
the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to
law.
Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of
the United States Magistrate Judge as to Defendant Eckersley’s motion for summary
judgment (Docket No. 201) as the findings of this Court.

3

The Court GRANTS

Defendant Eckersley’s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 170) and
DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Eckersley without prejudice for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Further, the Court hereby ADOPTS Report and Recommendation of the
United States Magistrate Judge as to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Lindley
(Docket No. 211) as the findings of this Court.

The Court hereby DISMISSES

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Lindley without prejudice for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 23rd day of September, 2021.

___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4