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

OSCAR JAVIER MARTINEZ, § §

§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-CV-00106-RWS Plaintiff, §

§ v. §

§ ASSISTANT WARDEN R. MARCHALL, § RONALD GIVENS, MARCUS R. § ROBINSON, §

Defendants.

ORDER The Plaintiff Oscar Javier Martinez, a prisoner of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division 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. Plaintiff named Warden R. Marchall of the Telford Unit, Warden Ronald Givens of the Connally Unit, and Major Marcus Robinson of the Connally Unit as defendants. I. The Plaintiff’s Claims In his original and first amended complaints, Plaintiff contended that a “documentary” is being projected in the prison showing his past life and his family. This “documentary,” which Plaintiff claims is somehow visible to other prisoners, is projected every day and night. He states it includes his wife, sons, nephew, and ex-girlfriend and shows explicit sex scenes. As a result, he claims the Mexican Mafia is planning to extort and send threats to his family and other people’s families. Plaintiff attached grievances to his amended complaint, to which the responses indicate there has been no evidence found to support his claims and he has been referred for mental health treatment. II. The Report of the Magistrate Judge and the Plaintiff’s Responses After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report concluding Plaintiff’s

claims rise to the level of the irrational or wholly incredible and recommending the lawsuit be dismissed as factually frivolous. In response to the Report, Plaintiff filed four “notices” and an amended complaint. In these filings Plaintiff continues to claim the documentary exists and is being projected and displayed for other inmates to view. He asserts he needs help from the court because his family’s privacy is being violated by the documentary. Plaintiff’s notices, objections, and second amended complaint simply underscore the correctness of the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the lawsuit is factually frivolous. See, e.g., Braud v. Cain, civil action no. 09-68,

(M.D.La. March 5, 2009) (prisoner’s claim that other inmates are sending him subliminal messages including projections of sexual behavior was factually frivolous). His objections are without merit. III. Conclusion

The Court has conducted a careful de novo review of those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings and recommendations to which the Plaintiff objected. See

(b)(1) (District Judge shall “make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”). Upon such de novo review, the Court has determined that the Reports of the Magistrate Judge are correct and the Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. It is accordingly ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s objections are overruled and the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 15) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for purposes of proceeding in forma pauperis as frivolous. It is further ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action are hereby DENIED. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 25th day of September, 2020.

foxhe t LO (rhimects. G2 ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3