Coffman v. Holmes et al

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM ORDER adopting 15 Report and Recommendation. Ordered that the civil action is dismissed without prejudice as moot. Ordered that any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby denied. Signed by District Judge Ron Clark on 11/30/2017. (bjc)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION DAN COFFMAN § v. § JOHN H. HOLMES, ET AL. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:17cv254 MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT The Plaintiff Dan Coffman, a 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, Coffman named TDCJ-CID officers John Holmes, Deborah Cockrell, Teara Stephens, Derek Light, and Tracey Tanner. Coffman contended that he was not safe at the Michael Unit. The sole relief sought in his lawsuit was that he be transferred off of the Michael Unit. The Magistrate Judge determined that according to TDCJ-CID records, Coffman was no longer at the Michael Unit. Because the sole relief sought had been obtained, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the lawsuit be dismissed as moot. See Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir. 2001). Coffman received a copy of the Magistrate Judge’s Report on October 19, 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 proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted 1 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. 15) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT. Finally, it is ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby DENIED. So Ordered and Signed Nov 30, 2017 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?