Green v. Davis et al

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 14 Report and Recommendations. It is therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for purposes of proceeding in forma pauperis for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Signed by District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle on 4/27/2021. (efarris, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
MICHAEL GREEN,
Plaintiff
v.
LORIE DAVIS, et al.,
Defendants

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 6:20-cv-324-JDK-JDL

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Michael Green, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge John D. Love for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for
disposition.
On Mach 16, 2021, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that the Court
grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docket No. 13) and dismiss Plaintiff’s claims
with prejudice for purposes of proceeding in forma pauperis. Docket No. 14. A copy
of this Report was sent to Plaintiff, but no objections have been received.
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),

1

superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to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 hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the
United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 14) as the findings of this Court. It is
therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for
purposes of proceeding in forma pauperis for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 27th day of April, 2021.

___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2