Miller v. Kempt et al

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 17 Report and Recommendations. It is therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. Signed by District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle on 6/4/2021. (efarris, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
TRAVIS WAYNNE MILLER, SR, #1170471, §
§
Plaintiff,
§
§
v.
§
§
PENNIE R. KEMPT, et al.,
§
§
Defendants.
§

Case No. 6:20-cv-510-JDK-JDL

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Travis Waynne Miller, Sr., a Texas Department of Criminal Justice prisoner
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 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 the disposition of the case.
On April 21, 2021, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that Plaintiff’s civil rights
lawsuit be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Docket No. 17
at 8. A copy of this Report was sent to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff acknowledged receipt of the Report
on May 13, 2021. Docket No. 18.
This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a
party objects within fourteen days 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1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the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).

1

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. 17) as the findings of this Court. It is therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with
prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 4th

day of June, 2021.

___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2