Jenkins v. Burks et al

Filing 50

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 45 Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiffs claims against Defendants Burks and Larsen are dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 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
ANTWUNE JENKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
ARIEL M. BURKS, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 6:23-cv-95-JDK-KNM

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Antwune Jenkins, 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 is Defendants Ariel Burks and Timothy Larsen’s motion for
summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Docket No. 28. On July 24, 2024, Judge Mitchell issued a Report recommending that
the Court grant the motion and dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against these Defendants
without prejudice.

Docket No. 45.

A copy of this Report was sent to Plaintiff.

However, no objections have been received.1
This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de

1

In a filing dated July 24, 2024—before he received a copy of the Magistrate Judge’s Report—and
docketed August 5, 2024, Plaintiff moves for leave to amend his complaint to add Defendant Daryl
Eason back to this case. Docket No. 47. The Court previously dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against
Defendant Eason without prejudice. Docket No. 44. Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint
provides no additional factual allegations that would overcome the previous dismissal. Accordingly,
the Court DENIES the motion (Docket No. 47).

1

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superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to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 the 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. 45) as the findings of this Court. The
Court GRANTS Defendants Burks and Larsen’s motion for summary judgment
(Docket No. 28) and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Burks and
Larsen without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 25th day of September, 2024.

___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2