Young v. Moore et al

Filing 34

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 15 Memorandum and Recommendations. The Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objection 17 ; GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' motion for summary judgment 13 ; DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Veronica Inmon, Joe Gonzalez, Jr., and John and Jane Does; DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's claims regarding the outcome of any disciplinary hearing; DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff's de nial of access claims; DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE those claims Plaintiff brought for the first time in his response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment; DISMISSES WITH PREJDUICE Plaintiff's claims for money damages against the Texas Department of Criminal Justice or against any defendant in his or her official capacity; and DENIES Defendants' motion for summary judgment with regard to Plaintiff's claim that Defendants Janet Salles, Jennifer Smith, Candace Moore, and Corey Furr retaliated against him.(Signed by Judge Hilda G Tagle) Parties notified.(scavazos, 1)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
JOE YOUNG,

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Plaintiff,
VS.
CANDACE MOORE, et al,
Defendants.

March 01, 2018
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL NO. 2:16-CV-00392

ORDER
The Court is in receipt of Defendants’ January 27, 2017, motion for summary
judgment, Dkt. No. 13; the April 6, 2017, Memorandum and Recommendation
(“M&R”) of the Magistrate Judge to whom this case was referred, Dkt. No. 15; and
Plaintiff’s April 24, 2017, objection to the M&R, Dkt. No. 17.
The Court reviews objected-to portions of a Magistrate Judge’s proposed
findings and recommendations de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s objection is
frivolous, conclusory, general, or contains no argument that the M&R has not
already considered. See Dkt. Nos. 15, 17; Battle v. United States Parole Comm’n,
834 F.2d 419 (5th Cir. 1987) (determining that a district court need not consider
frivolous, conclusive, or general objections). After independently reviewing the
record and considering the applicable law, the Court adopts the proposed M&R in
its entirety. Dkt. No. 15. Thus, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objection. Dkt.
No. 17.
The Court hereby:


GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment, Dkt. No. 13;



DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants
Veronica Inmon, Joe Gonzalez, Jr., and John and Jane Does;



DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s claims regarding the
outcome of any disciplinary hearing;

1/2



DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s denial of access claims;



DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE those claims Plaintiff brought for
the first time in his response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment;



DISMISSES WITH PREJDUICE Plaintiff’s claims for money damages
against the Texas Department of Criminal Justice or against any defendant
in his or her official capacity; and



DENIES Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with regard to
Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants Janet Salles, Jennifer Smith, Candace
Moore, and Corey Furr retaliated against him.

SIGNED this 1st day of March, 2018.
___________________________________
Hilda Tagle
Senior United States District Judge

2/2