IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION

JIMMY LEE MATHIS, § § Plaintiff, § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-CV-00173-RWS § v. § § BRYAN COLLIER, EXECUTIVE § DIRECTOR; ANGELINA ALEXANDER, § ADMIN ASST. III; PAMELA THIELKE, § TDCJ DIVISION DIRECTOR; AND § RISSIE OWENS, PARDON AND PAROLE § DIVISION; § § Defendants. § ORDER The Plaintiff Jimmy Mathis, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under

complaining of alleged violations of his constitutional rights. This Court referred the case to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Magistrate Judge reviewed Plaintiff’s pleadings and determined the lawsuit is, in effect, a challenge to the calculation of his sentence and his parole eligibility. Docket No. 9 at 4. Accordingly, to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, Plaintiff must show the challenged conviction or sentence has been reversed, expunged or otherwise declared invalid. Id. (citing Heck v. Humphrey,

, 486–87 (1994); McGrew v. Texas Bd. of Pardons and Paroles,

(5th Cir. 1995)). Having not done so, Plaintiff’s claim for monetary damages is barred by Heck until he can show the conviction or sentence has been overturned, expunged or otherwise set aside, including through calculating the sentence as concurrent rather than consecutive. Mathis received a copy of the Magistrate Judge’s Report but filed no objections thereto; accordingly, he is not entitled to de novo review by the District Judge of those findings, conclusions and recommendations, and except upon grounds of plain error, he is barred from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court.

(b)(1)(C); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,

(Sth Cir. 1996) (en banc). Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the Report of the Magistrate Judge and agrees with the Report of the Magistrate Judge. See United States v. Raddatz,

(1980) (“[T]he statute permits the district court to give to the magistrate’s proposed findings of fact and recommendations ‘such weight as [their] merit commands and the sound discretion of the judge warrants ....’”) (quoting Mathews v. Weber,

, 275 (1976)). It is accordingly ORDERED the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 9) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE until the Heck conditions are met. The dismissal of this civil action should have no effect upon Plaintiff's right to challenge any of his convictions through any lawful means.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 30th day of October, 2019.

foehert LU Gbrrnects. G2. ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Page 2 of 2