Cato v. Pedro et al

Filing 30

ORDER ADOPTING 26 Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, and DENYING 24 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle on 6/1/2024. (wea)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
HENRY CATO, Jr., #2214123,
Plaintiff,
v.
O. PEDRO, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 6:23-cv-448-JDK-JDL

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Henry Cato, Jr., a prisoner of the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice 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 the disposition of the case.
On May 13, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that
Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s case as untimely (Docket No. 24) be denied.
Docket No. 26. Defendant did not file timely objections.
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 Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other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, Defendant 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. 26) as the findings of this Court.
Defendant’s motion (Docket No. 24) is DENIED without prejudice to Defendant’s
ability to raise the potential untimeliness of Plaintiff’s lawsuit in a motion for
summary judgment.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 1st

day of June, 2024.

___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2