IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT February 19, 2020 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS David J. Bradley, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

JARVIS DUGAS, § § Plaintiff, § VS. § CIVIL NO. 2:17-CV-48 § JUAN QUINTERO, et al, § § Defendants. §

ORDER

The Court is in receipt of the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”), Dkt. No. 177. The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff Jarvis Dugas (“Dugas”) Objections to the M&R, Dkt. Nos. 180, 185, 186, 190, 191, 194. The M&R recommends granting Sergeant Quintero’s (“Quintero”) and PA Echavarry’s (“Echavarry”) motions for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 177 at 20; see Dkt. Nos. 123, 125. It also recommends denying Dugas’s motion for summary judgment. Dkt No. 177 at 21; see Dkt. Nos. 117. The Court reviews objected-to portions of a Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings and recommendations de novo.

(b)(1). But if the objections are frivolous, conclusive or general in nature the court need not conduct a de novo review. Battle v. United States Parole Comm’n,

(5th Cir. 1987). All of Dugas’s objections are either frivolous, general, improper or already addressed by the Magistrate Judge’s M&R. See id; Dkt. Nos. 180, 185, 186, 190, 191, 194. After independently reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety, Dkt. No. 177, and OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections, Dkt. Nos. 180, 185, 186, 190, 191, 194. The Court hereby:  GRANTS Quintero’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 123, and DISMISSES with prejudice Dugas’s deliberate indifference claim against Quintero for denying him certain health medications. e GRANTS Echavarry’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 125, and DISMISSES with prejudice Dugas’s deliberate indifference claim against Echavarry regarding a denial of medical transfer to the Hodge Unit. e DENIES Dugas’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 117.

SIGNED this 19th day of February, 2020.

Hilda Tagle Senior United States District Judge

2/2