Roberson v. Jackson et al
ORDER ADOPTING 142 Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court GRANTS Defendants' motions to dismiss 110 , 111 , and 114 . All of Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief are DENIED. Plaintiff's cla ims against Defendants Burson, Jackson, and Goldman are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff's excessive use of force claims will remain before the Court. Signed by District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle on 11/18/2022. (wea, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MICHAEL C. ROBERSON,
NORRIS JACKSON, et al.,
Case No. 6:20-cv-188-JDK-KNM
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Michael C. Roberson, 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. This case was reopened on Plaintiff’s own motion after he requested
that this Court administratively close his case because of his hospitalization. Docket
Nos. 144, 145).
Before the Court are Defendants Terry Burson and Norris Jackson’s motion to
dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (Docket
No. 110); Defendants Patricia Urkuski, Amy Westbrook, and Jonathan Gale’s motion
to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (Docket No. 111);
and Defendant Michael Goldman’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (Docket No. 114).
On January 24, 2022, before the administrative closure, Judge Mitchell issued
a Report recommending that the Court grant Defendants’ motions to dismiss. Docket
No. 142. Specifically, Judge Mitchell recommended that the Court (1) deny all of
Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief, (2) dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against
Defendants Burson and Jackson with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, and (3) dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Goldman
with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Judge
Mitchell further recommended that Plaintiff’s excessive use of force claims against
Defendants Urkuski, Westbrook, Gale, and Dickens should remain pending before
the Court. Plaintiff timely objected after the administrative closure. Docket No. 145.
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).
Frivolous, conclusory, or general objections need not be considered by the
District Court; rather, a party objecting to a Magistrate Judge’s Report must
specifically identify those findings in the Report to which he objects. See Nettles v.
Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other
grounds by Douglass, 79 F.3d 1415; see also Valez-Pedro v. Thermo King De Puerto
Rico, Inc., 465 F.3d 31, 32 (1st Cir. 2006) (explaining that an objecting party must put
forth more than “[c]onclusory allegations that do not direct the reviewing court to the
issues in controversy.”).
In his objections, Plaintiff insists that his injunctive requests are not moot, but
he makes only generalized statements and arguments. Moreover, he fails to address
Judge Mitchell’s further finding that he failed to plead sufficient facts necessary to
meet the requirements of a permanent or preliminary injunction. He also does not
address the analysis concerning his claim for “TDCJ camera[s].”
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 OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections (Docket No. 145) and ADOPTS
the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 142) as the opinion of the District
Court. The Court GRANTS Defendants Burson and Jackson’s motion to dismiss
(Docket No. 110); Defendants Urkuski, Westbrook, and Gale’s motion to dismiss
(Docket No. 111); and Defendant Goldman’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 114). All
of Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief are DENIED. Plaintiff’s claims against
Defendants Burson, Jackson, and Goldman are DISMISSED with prejudice for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff’s excessive use of
force claims will remain before the Court.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 18th day of November, 2022.
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?