Nelson v. University of Texas Medical Branch et al

Filing 13

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations for 12 Report and Recommendations. Signed by District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle on 3/6/2025. (esw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
BONITA NELSON, as mother and heir
at law of Shawn Nelson, deceased,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL
BRANCH, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 6:24-cv-22-JDK-KNM

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Bonita Nelson, as mother and heir of her deceased son, Shawn Nelson,
a former prisoner confined within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
(“TDCJ”), through counsel, 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.
On February 7, 2025, Judge Mitchell issued a Report (Docket No. 12),
recommending that Defendant Stebbins’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 5) be
granted, in part, and denied in part. Specifically, she determined that Plaintiff ’s
claims for monetary damages against all Defendants should be dismissed. Judge
Mitchell further found that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Stebbins should be
dismissed, with prejudice, for the failure to state a claim against him upon which
relief may be granted—and determined that he is entitled to qualified immunity. No
objections have been filed.
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superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to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 file objections and the objections period has ended. 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) (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. 12) as the findings of this Court.
Defendant Stebbins’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 5) is GRANTED, in part, and
DENIED in part. Plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages against all defendants in
their official capacities DISMISSED, and Plaintiff ’s claims against Defendant
Stebbins are DISMISSED with prejudice for the failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.

2

It is further ORDERED that the remaining Defendants in this action shall
answer or otherwise plead within 14 days of the date of entry of this Order. FED. R.
CIV. P. 12(a)(4)(A).
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 6th day of March, 2025.

___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3