Counts v. Neal et al

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 17 Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiffs claim against Defendant Neal in her individual capacity is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle on 6/3/2024. (gsm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
RANDALL ALLAN COUNTS,
Plaintiff,
v.
BARBRA NEAL, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 6:23-cv-333-JDK-JDL

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Randall Allan Counts, 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 John D. Love for findings
of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition.
On April 10, 2024, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that the Court
dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their official capacities without
prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief as
moot, dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Lumpkin, Adeniran, and
Marshall in their individual capacities with prejudice for failure to state a claim
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant
Neal without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
Docket No. 17. 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
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superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to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. 17) as the findings of this Court. It is
therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their official
capacities are DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s
claim for injunctive relief is DISMISSED with prejudice as moot. Plaintiff’s claims
against Defendants Lumpkin, Adeniran, and Marshall in their individual capacities
are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2

1915A(b)(1).

Finally, Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Neal in her individual

capacity is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i).

So ordered and signed on this
Jun 3, 2024

3