Kearey v. Currie et al

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS AND TO RETAIN CASE re: 9 Memorandum and Recommendation. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs claims against Warden Currie and Warden Clark with prejudice for failure to state a claim and/or as frivolous.(Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(mserpa, 2)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
MARK JAMAL KEARNEY,
Plaintiff,
VS.
GARY L CURRIE, et al,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-00039
§
§
§
§

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS AND TO RETAIN CASE
On May 21, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby issued his
“Memorandum and Recommendation to Dismiss Certain Claims and to Retain Case”
(D.E. 9). The Plaintiff was provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the
Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation.

FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); General Order No. 2002-13. No objections have been filed.
When no timely objection to a magistrate judge’s memorandum and
recommendation is filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear
error on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge’s memorandum and
recommendation. Guillory v. PPG Industries, Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005)
(citing Douglass v. United Services Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996)).
Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the
Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (D.E. 9), and all other relevant
documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the
findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court RETAINS
1/2

Plaintiff’s First Amendment and RLUIPA claims for declaratory and injunctive relief
against Defendants Brad Livingston and William Stephens in their official capacities, and
ORDERS that these Defendants be served, and upon such service, that Plaintiff’s claims
concerning his right to wear a quarter-inch beard be automatically STAYED pending
resolution of the issue in Ali v. Stephens, Case No. 9:09-cv-052. The Court RETAINS
Plaintiff’s Due Process and/or Eighth Amendment claim(s) against Warden Monroe in
his individual capacity and ORDERS service on this Defendant.

The Court

DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims against Warden Currie and Warden Clark with prejudice
for failure to state a claim and/or as frivolous. The Court DISMISSES claims for money
damages against Defendants in their official capacities as barred by the Eleventh
Amendment.
ORDERED this 23rd day of June, 2014.

___________________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2