Underwood v. Wilson et al

Filing 19

Order Accepting 15 Findings and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 4/30/2014) (axm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
DAVID UNDERWOOD, #43538-112,
Plaintiff,
v.
J.WILSON, Lieutenant at FCI
Seagoville, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-0376-L

ORDER
Before the court is Plaintiff David Underwood’s (“Plaintiff”) pro se Complaint, filed January
17, 2014.* This case was originally filed in the Eastern District of Texas and was transferred to the
Northern District of Texas on January 29, 2014. This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Renee
Harris Toliver on January 30, 2014. The magistrate judge entered Findings, Conclusions, and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) on March 27, 2014,
recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed. Plaintiff filed two objections on April 8,
2014.
The magistrate judge recommended that the complaint be summarily dismissed with
prejudice (1) as time barred; (2) as frivolous; and (3) for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. Plaintiff first objects to the magistrate judge’s determination that his complaint is
time barred. Plaintiff contends that his administrative exhaustion proceedings toll the limitation
period. The magistrate judge, however, directly addressed this issue in the Report. Even though a
prisoner’s administrative exhaustion proceedings toll the limitation’s period, none of Plaintiff’s

*

Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis.

Order - Page 1

administrative requests and appeals related to the conspiracy claims at issue in the complaint.
Plaintiff’s objection is therefore overruled.
Second, Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s determination that he failed to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff contends that he clearly stated a claim that states all the
essential facts to proceed against Defendants. The court agrees with the magistrate judge’s
determination, and Plaintiff’s second objection is overruled.
Having reviewed the pleadings, file, and record in this case, and the findings and conclusions
of the magistrate judge, the court accepts the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions as those
of the court. Accordingly, the court dismisses with prejudice Plaintiff’s Complaint. Pursuant to
Rule 58(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court will enter judgment by separate
document.
It is so ordered this 30th day of April, 2014.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

Order - Page 2