Daniels v. Smith County Sheriff

Filing 9

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 5 Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. Signed by District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle on 6/1/2024. (gsm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
RANDY K. DANIELS, #129276,
Plaintiff,
v.
SMITH COUNTY SHERIFF,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 6:24-cv-077-JDK-KNM

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Randy K. Daniels, an inmate of the Smith County Jail proceeding pro
se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging violations of his constitutional rights in jail. The case was referred to
United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions
of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.
On May 1, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the
case be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Docket No. 5. A copy of this Report was sent to Plaintiff, but
he has not filed written 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 Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other

1

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 her 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. 5) as the findings of this Court. This case
is DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 1st

day of June, 2024.

___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2