Williams v. Catoe et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 286 Report and Recommendations. It is ORDERED that 265 Sealed Motion is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that 222 Motion for Summary Judgment filed is DENIED as to Defendant White only. Finally, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff'sclaims against Defendant Vicki White are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Signed by District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle on 6/4/2021. (efarris, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, #0481914,
JEFFREY CATOE, et al.,
Case No. 6:17-cv-627-JDK-KNM
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Elliott Williams, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice inmate
proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case
was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636.
Before the Court are Defendant Vicki White’s motion for summary judgment
(Docket No. 265) and Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 222). On
April 5, 2021, Judge Mitchell issued a Report recommending that the Court grant
Defendant White’s motion for summary judgment and deny Plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment regarding Defendant White. Docket No. 286. The Report further
recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant White with
prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff timely
objected. Docket No. 292.
Where a party timely objects to the Report and Recommendation, the Court
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 Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other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 asserts for the first time that Defendant White was
retaliating against him. Docket No. 292 at 6. But a party may not raise “new
evidence, argument[s], and issues that were not presented to the magistrate judge,
absent compelling reasons.” Freeman v. Cnty. of Bexar, 142 F.3d 848, 850 (5th Cir.
1998). No such compelling reasons exist here. “New claims and issues may not, . . .,
be raised for the first time in objections to a Report and Recommendation.” Place v.
Thomas, 61 F. App’x 120, 2003 WL 342287, at *1 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing United States
v. Armstrong, 951 F.2d 626, 630 (5th Cir. 1992)).
Having conducted a de novo review of the record in this case and the
Magistrate Judge’s Report, 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. 286) as
the opinion of the District Court. It is ORDERED that Defendant White’s CrossMotion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 265) is GRANTED.
It is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 222) is
DENIED as to Defendant White only. Finally, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s
claims against Defendant Vicki White are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 4th day of June, 2021.
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?