Casares v. Linthicum et al

Filing 135

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 127 Report and Recommendations, 128 Report and Recommendations. ORDER granting 112 Motion for Summary Judgment, 93 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's claims against these Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Further, Defendants Garner, Hanson, Masenburge, and McComas are DISMISSED from this case. Signed by District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle on 03/14/2021. (efarris, )

Case 6:17-cv-00701-JDK-KNM Document 135 Filed 03/15/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 1053

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
VINCENT CASARES,
Plaintiff,
v.
LANNETTE LINTHICUM, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 6:17-cv-701-JDK-KNM

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Vincent Casares, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice prisoner,
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
are a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Wilford Hanson and Patrick
Masenburge (Docket No. 93) and a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants
Linda Garner and Peggy McComas (Docket No. 112).
On November 19, 2020, Judge Mitchell issued a Report recommending that the
Court grant Defendants Hanson and Masenburge’s motion for summary judgment
and dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against these Defendants with prejudice.

Docket

No. 127. On November 25, 2020, Judge Mitchell issued a Report recommending that
the Court also grant Defendants Garner and McComas’s motion for summary
judgment and dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against these Defendants with prejudice.

1

Case 6:17-cv-00701-JDK-KNM Document 135 Filed 03/15/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 1054

Docket No. 128. A copy of each Report was sent to Plaintiff and he received them on
January 20, 2021. Docket Nos. 132, 133.
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superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to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. 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 ADOPTS the Reports of the United States Magistrate
Judge (Docket Nos. 127, 128) as the findings of this Court.

The Court hereby

GRANTS Defendants Hanson and Masenburge’s motion for summary judgment
(Docket No. 93) and GRANTS Defendants Garner and McComas’s motion for
summary judgment (Docket No. 112). Plaintiff’s claims against these Defendants are

2

Case 6:17-cv-00701-JDK-KNM Document 135 Filed 03/15/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 1055

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Further, Defendants Garner, Hanson,

Masenburge, and McComas are DISMISSED from this case.
The dismissal of these parties and claims has no effect on the remaining claims
and Defendants in this case.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 14th day of March, 2021.

___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3