Davis v. Valdez
Filing
14
ORDER Accepting 13 Findings and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. The court dismisses with prejudice the claims against Sheriff Lupe Valdez. This case is recommited to the magistrate judge for additional screening of Plaintiff's excessive force claim against the two unnamed detention officers. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 9/6/2012) (tla)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
GRADY ALLEN DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHERIFF LUPE VALDEZ, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:12-CV-2013-L
ORDER
This case, which was brought by Plaintiff Grady Allen Davis (“Plaintiff”) and two unnamed
detention officers on June 25, 2012, was referred to Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan, who entered
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) on
August 20, 2012, recommending that the claims against Sheriff Lupe Valdez be summarily
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and his excessive force claims against the two
unnamed detention officers be allowed to proceed with additional screening. Plaintiff Grady Allen
Davis (“Davis”), who is proceeding pro se, did not file objections to the Report. After reviewing the
pleadings, file, and record in this case, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the
magistrate judge are correct, accepts them as those of the court, and dismisses with prejudice the
claims against Sheriff Lupe Valdez. This case is recommited to the magistrate judge for additional
screening of Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against the two unnamed detention officers, pursuant
to the recommendation of the magistrate judge dated August 20, 2012.
Order –Page 1
It is so ordered this 6th day of September, 2012.
_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge
Order –Page 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?