Mayfield v. Administrative Segregation Security et al

Filing 19

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING 15 THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 12/29/16. (ljw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUFKIN DIVISION
LARRY M. MAYFIELD

§

VS.

§

ADMINISTRATIVE SEGREGATION
SECURITY, ET AL.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:15-CV-145

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Larry M. Mayfield, a prisoner previously confined at the Lewis Unit of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Administrative
Segregation security staff, the Administrative Grievance Department, Stephen Bryant, Erma
Fernandez, Edward Sells, Kevin Langford, Cristin L. Boykin, G. Brandon, Gilbert Rodriguez, Frank
Rigsby, Eric Lane, Thomas Austin, Nicholas Roby, Mohamed Touhami, Dana K. Bette, Philip K.
Whigham, John Kuykendall, Tiffany Hadnot, William Edding, and Joe S. Collins.
The court ordered that this matter be referred to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States
Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of
this court. The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing the action with prejudice pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e).
The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge, along with the record and the pleadings. Plaintiff filed objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.

The court has conducted a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and
the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After careful consideration, the court concludes the
objections are without merit. Plaintiff reiterates claims raised in his original and amended pleadings.
For the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation, those objections lack
merit. Plaintiff also alleges his discrimination claim is meritorious because he is part of a group of
offenders singled out for more frequent searches because of their security classification. In support
of this claim, plaintiff alleges another inmate with a higher security classification is not subjected
to daily searches. However, in a grievance attached to his original complaint, plaintiff states that the
higher security inmate is confined in a special cell with additional security devices. Therefore, the
discrimination claim lacks merit because the inmates are not similarly situated. See Sossamon v.
Lone Star State of Texas, 560 F.3d 316, 336 (5th Cir. 2009) (To establish a violation of the Equal
Protection Clause, the plaintiff must allege purposeful discrimination, which resulted in a
discriminatory effect among similarly situated individuals.)
ORDER
Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections (document no. 17) are OVERRULED. The findings of
fact and conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and the report of the Magistrate
Judge (document no. 15) is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance
with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 29 day of December, 2016.

___________________________________
Ron Clark, United States District Judge

2