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)

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