Jones v. Roberts et al

Filing 16

ORDER overruling plaintiff's objections and adopting the magistrate judge's 9 Report and Recommendation. Signed by District Judge Ron Clark on 6/17/2019. (bjc, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUFKIN DIVISION
KEVIN JEROME JONES

§

VS.

§

MARK ROBERTS, ET AL.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:19-CV-65

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Kevin Jerome Jones, a prisoner confined at the Eastham Unit of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID), proceeding pro se,
filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Mark Roberts, T. Holmes, K. Hutto,
B. Johnson, and Warden Stubblefield. Plaintiff requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
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 denying plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and dismissing the action unless plaintiff paid the $400 filing fee
within fourteen days after the Report and Recommendation was entered.
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 has not demonstrated that he is in imminent danger of serious
physical injury. Therefore, the action should be dismissed without prejudice.
ORDER
Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections (document nos. 12 and 13) 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. 9) is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in
accordance with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations.

So Ordered and Signed
Jun 17, 2019

2