Partaka v. Johnson et al

Filing 32

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 24 Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiffs claims are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Any request for class certification is Denied. 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
DENNIS W. PARTAKA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FNU JOHNSON, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 6:24-cv-31-JDK-JDL

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Jonathan Pendelton, a former Texas Department of Criminal Justice
inmate proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636.
On April 17, 2024, Judge Love issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that the Court dismiss this case with prejudice for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted and deny any request by Plaintiff seeking a
class action proceeding in this case. Docket No. 24. Plaintiff objected. Docket No. 26.
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 Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other

1

grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from
ten to fourteen days).

However, conclusory or general objections need not be

considered by the District Court. See Gonzales v. Collier, 2023 WL 5473699, at *1 &
n.2 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 24, 2023) (citing Aldrich v. Bock, 327, F. Supp. 2d 743, 747 (E.D.
Mich. 2004) (“An objection that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a
magistrate [judge’s] suggested resolution, or simply summarizes what has been
presented before, is not an ‘objection’ as that term is used in this context.”)).
Here, Plaintiff’s objections fail to address the substance of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report. Rather, he maintains that the “plaintiffs are not going to let the
defendants get away with this.” Docket No. 26. Plaintiff identifies no error in the
Report. Further, Plaintiff’s mere “Notice” of an intent to file a class action (Docket
No. 27) is insufficient.
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. 11) as
the opinion of the District Court. Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED with prejudice
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Any request for class
certification is DENIED.

So ordered and signed on this
Jun 3, 2024

2