Watson v. Thaler et al

Filing 76

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION re: granting 69 MOTION for Summary Judgment With Brief In Support, denying 66 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Petitioner is also denied Certificate of Appealability. (Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(amireles, 2)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
JONATHAN HARRIS WATSON,
Petitioner,
VS.
WILLIAM STEPHENS, et al,
Respondents.

§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-CV-349
§
§
§
§

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court are Petitioner Jonathan Harris Watson’s motion for
summary judgment (D.E. 66) and Respondent William Stephens’ motion for summary
judgment (D.E. 69), to which Petitioner has responded (D.E. 70). On January 21, 2014,
Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby issued his Memorandum and Recommendation to Grant
Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment (M&R) (D.E. 71), recommending that
Respondent’s motion be granted and Petitioner’s motion be denied. The M&R also
recommends that Petitioner be denied a Certificate of Appealability. Petitioner filed his
timely objections to the M&R on February 7, 2014 (D.E. 75).1
I. Legal Standard
A district court that refers a case to a magistrate judge must review de novo any
portions of the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations on dispositive
matters to which the parties have filed specific, written objections. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).

1. Petitioner certified that he delivered his objections to prison authorities on February 7, 2014. D.E. 75 at
5. Under the “mailbox rule,” the date of filing for pro se prisoners is the date the inmate places the legal paper in the
hands of prison officials for mailing. Spotville v. Cain, 149 F.3d 374, 376–78 (5th Cir. 1998).

1/3

The district court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, those portions of the
proposed findings and recommendations. Id.
II. Analysis
Petitioner first objects to the M&R on the grounds that he responded to
Respondent’s motion for summary judgment, but the M&R “did not mention [it] at all.”
D.E. 75 at 2.2 According to Petitioner, because the M&R was not based on the record as
a whole, it should not be followed. A review of the M&R shows that it did acknowledge
Petitioner’s November 29, 2013 response to Respondent’s motion for summary
judgment. D.E. 71 at 4. The M&R also discussed the arguments raised in Petitioner’s
own motion for summary judgment. Id. at 4–5. The M&R was not required to address
every duplicative and/or nonmeritorious argument raised in Petitioner’s response.
Petitioner’s first objection is therefore OVERRULED.
Petitioner further objects to the M&R on the grounds that he has been “denied
ALL opportunity” to present facts essential to oppose Respondent’s motion for summary
judgment because he has been denied access to the TDCJ disciplinary proceeding
documents and audio CD evidence. D.E. 75 at 2 (emphasis in original). The Court first
notes that this objection does not address any specific proposed finding or
recommendation contained in the M&R. Furthermore, as set forth in the Court’s August
15, 2013 Order denying Petitioner’s request for clarification, Petitioner previously
requested certain discovery in at least seven separate motions, and he has been provided

2. Petitioner also complains that the M&R ignored his March 27, 2013 response (D.E. 26) to Respondent’s
first motion for summary judgment (D.E. 16). That motion was previously denied and is no longer pending before
the Court. D.E. 40.

2/3

all of the discovery to which he is entitled. D.E. 62. Petitioner’s second objection is
therefore OVERRULED.
III. Conclusion
Having reviewed the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations
set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation, as well as
Petitioner’s objections and all other relevant documents in the record, the Court
OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections and ADOPTS as its own the findings and
conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, Respondent’s motion for summary
judgment (D.E. 69) is GRANTED and Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment (D.E.
66) is DENIED.
Petitioner is also DENIED a Certificate of Appealability.
It is so ORDERED.

ORDERED this 19th day of May, 2014.

___________________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3/3