UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JACOB LEE CIVIL ACTION V. NO. 24-2337 KEITH BICKHAM SECTION "L"(4)

ORDER & REASONS Before the Court is Plaintiff Jacob Lee’s Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation dismissing his case. R. Doc. 10. After considering the record, applicable law, and briefing, the Court now rules as follows. Lee filed this lawsuit pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to

against Defendant RCC Deputy Warden Keith Bickham. R. Doc. 1. He alleges that on May 4, 2024, Warden Bickham needlessly sprayed him with a chemical agent during an altercation with another inmate.

This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct a hearing and submit proposed findings and recommendations for disposition. R. Doc. 7. Upon review of the record, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Lee’s § 1983 claims against Warden Bickham be

dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and otherwise for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted pursuant to

(e) and § 1915A. Id. More specifically, the court found that “Lee’s active defiance after receiving direct orders to cease his behavior was sufficient cause for Deputy Warden Bickham to use the chemical spray to restore discipline and affect compliance with his orders.” Id. at 6. Lee was instructed that he must file any written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation within 14 days after being served with a copy. Id. On December 9, 2024, the Court subsequently adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and entered a judgment in favor of Warden Bickham. R. Docs. 8, 9. On the same day that the Court entered its final judgment, the Clerk’s Office received a letter via U.S. mail containing Lee’s objection to the Report and Recommendation. R. Doc. 10. Lee explains that he received a copy of the Magistrate Judge’s findings on November 21, 2024, and his objection was postmarked on November 27, 2024, indicating he objected within 14 days from receipt as required. /d. Therefore, the Court must consider the merits of Lee’s objection. However, upon conducting a de novo review of the objection in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law, the Court finds that there is no reason to disturb its final judgment adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Lee has merely re-raised his argument that chemical spray should not have been used on him but wholly fails to address the fact that he was actively defiant toward Warden Bickham’s commands to cease his aggressive behavior toward a fellow inmate. R. Doc. 10. A prisoner’s “flagrant disobedience,” if ignored without consequence, is sufficient disruption of prison order and security to warrant the use of reasonable force. Martin v. Seal, No. 11-726,

, at *6 (E.D. La. June 25, 2014). Accordingly; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that dismissal of Lee’s claims is warranted.

ly Calor United States District Judge ce: Mr. Jacob Lee B.B. (Sixty) Rayburn Correctional Center 27268 Highway 21 Angie, LA 70426