Bryant v. Davis

Filing 95

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 94 Report and Recommendations. It is ORDERED that 93 Motion to Dismiss filed by Bobby Lumpkin is GRANTED. Plaintiff civil rights lawsuit is DISMISSED, with prejudice. Finally, it is ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this case are DENIED as MOOT. Signed by District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle on 10/28/2021. (efarris, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
CHARLES BRYANT, #01184590

§

VS.

§

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:17cv109

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Charles Bryant, a prisoner currently confined at the Coffield Unit within the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to the Religious
Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The case was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations
for the disposition of the case.
On September 7, 2021, Judge Mitchell issued a Report, (Docket No. 94), recommending
that the unopposed motion to dismiss, (Docket No. 93), be granted. The parties in this case have
reached and executed a settlement agreement in this case. The Court commends the parties for
working together to arrive at a mutually acceptable resolution of this case. A copy of this Report
was sent to Plaintiff. To date, however, objections have not been filed.
The Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a
party objects within fourteen days 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1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the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 days to fourteen days).

1

Here, Plaintiff has not filed objections. 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 Report 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 (Docket
No. 94) as the findings of this Court. Therefore, it is
ORDERED that the unopposed motion to dismiss, (Docket No. 93), is GRANTED.
Plaintiff civil rights lawsuit is DISMISSED, with prejudice. Finally, it is
ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this case are DENIED as
MOOT.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 28th day of October, 2021.

___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2