Green v. Respondek et al

Filing 34

ORDER ADOPTING 28 Findings and Recommendations. The dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint shall count as a qualifying dismissal under 28 U.S.C. $ 1915(g) and Adepegbe v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1996). Any pending motions 31 32 and 33 are denied. (Ordered by Judge Sam R Cummings on 8/3/2011) (cb)

IN THE LINITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION
STEVE GREEN,
okn STEYE O'NEAL GREEN,
Institutional ID No. 1436873.
SID No. 4149406

CryIL ACTION NO.

Plaintiff,

5:10-CV-00066-C

V.
NURSE NFN RESPONDEK, e/ a/.,
Defendants.

ECF

ORDER
Plaintiff Steve Green, akaSteve O'Neal Green, filedapro
to 42 U.S.C. $ 1983 against Defendants NFN Respondek,

a

se

civil rights complaint pursuant

prison nurse, and NFN Parker, a prison

mailroom supervisor, for alleged constitutional violations while he was incarcerated in the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice ("TDCJ") John T. Montford Unit in Lubbock, Texas.
The complaint was transferred to the docket ofthe United States Magistrate Judge, who held

a televideo hearing pursuant to Spears v. McCotter, J66 F.2d 179, 181-82 (5th Cir. 1985), on
December 14,2010. Plaintiff appeared and testified under oath. He did not consent to proceed
before the United States Magistrate Judge.
Pursuant to this Court's Order entered on July 23, 2010, the Magistrate Judge entered

findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation for disposition on January 7,2011.

Plaintiff did not file objections, but he filed a motion for extension of time within which to file
objections on January 21,2011, a motion for leave to file an amended complaint on January 21,
2011, with an attached complaint, and a motion to proceed informa pauperis.

The undersigned United States District Judge has made an independent examination of the

record in this case and has examined the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge and considered Plaintiff s motions, including the motion for an extension of time

within to file objections. Based upon this Court's independent examination of the record of the
evidentiary hearing, Plaintiff s complaint, Plaintiff s sworn testimony, and authenticated prison
records, the Court finds the following:
1.
Even though Plaintiff requested a thirty-day extension of time within which to file
objections to the Report and Recommendation, he was able to file a request for leave to file an
amended complaint with an attached amended complaint within ten days of the Report and
Recommendation and he has failed to file objections as of this date; therefore, his request for an
extension of time within which to file objections should be denied.

2. Plaintiff s request to file an amended complaint should be denied; the amended
complaint contains a new defendant and claims that allegedly occurred after Plaintiff was transferred
to the TDCJ Neal Unit in Amarillo, Texas.
3.

The Magistrate Judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendation should
accepted and adopted, and Plaintiff s civil rights complaint and all claims alleged therein should
dismissed with prejudice as frivolous.
SO ORDERED.
Judgment shall be entered accordingly.
The dismissal of Plaintiff s complaint shall count as a qualiffing dismissal under 28

U.S.C. $ 1915(g) and Adepegbe v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1996).

Any pending motions are denied.
Dated

Arrgr'rst----{-,

201 L

INGS
District Jud

be
be