Sanchez v. Nursing et al

Filing 26

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations for 24 Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Signed by District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle on 3/6/2025. (gsm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
FRANCISCO SANCHEZ, #01271648
Plaintiff,
v.
NURSING, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 6:24-cv-275-JDK-KNM

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Francisco Sanchez, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice inmate
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 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 January 24, 2025, Judge Mitchell issued a Report recommending that this
case be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2). Docket No. 24. A copy of this Report was sent to Plaintiff,
and he did not file objections.
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),

1

superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to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) (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. 24) as the findings of this Court. This
case is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 6th day of March, 2025.

___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2