Jackson v. Sweat et al

Filing 86

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 80 Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiffs claims against Defendants in their individual capacities are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Signed by District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle on 9/25/2024. (gsm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
SAMUEL JACKSON, #1151723,
Plaintiff,
v.
SGT. MABLE SWEAT, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 6:21-cv-323-JDK-KNM

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Samuel Jackson, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice inmate
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 Defendants Mable Sweat, Susan Cunningham, and David
Sieg’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Docket
No. 65), Defendant Maria Ponce’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Docket No. 73), and Plaintiff Jackson’s motion for judgment
on the pleadings (Docket No. 78). On August 21, 2024, Judge Mitchell issued a Report
recommending that the Court grant Defendants’ motions and deny Plaintiff’s motion.
The Report further recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against
unserved Defendants Warren and McElyea. Docket No. 80. Plaintiff filed objections.
Docket No. 84.

1

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 Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other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).
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. 80) as
the opinion of the District Court.

The Court GRANTS Defendants Sweat,

Cunningham, and Sieg’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 65), GRANTS Defendant
Ponce’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 73), and DENIES Plaintiff Jackson’s motion
for judgment on the pleadings (Docket No. 78). Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants
in their individual capacities are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s
claims against unserved Defendants Warren and McElyea are DISMISSED with
prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 25th day of September, 2024.
.
___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2