Byrum v. Nueces County Subtance Abuse Treatment Facility
Byrum v. Nueces County Subtance Abuse Treatment Facility
Trial Court Opinion
Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT October 05, 2021 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION JODY STEVEN BYRUM, § Plaintiff, VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-CV-124 NUECES COUNTY SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FACILITY, etal, § □
Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie Hampton’s Memorandum and Recommendation (M&R). (D.E. 15). The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R. See
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b); General Order No. 2002-13. No timely objection has been filed. See (D.E. 18). When no timely objection has been filed, the district court need only determine whether the Magistrate Judge’s M&R is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson,
864 F.2d 1219, 1221(Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Powell v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP, No. CIV. A. H-14-2700,
2015 WL 3823141, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 18, 2015). Having carefully reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, and finding that the M&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 15).
1 /2
Accordingly: (1) Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1), Plaintiffs § 1983 claims against Defendant Stan Turpin related to his probation revocation is DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous until such time as Plaintiff satisfies the conditions set forth in Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477, 489-87(1994). (2) To the extent Plaintiff complains about the legality of his probation revocation, such claims are DISMISSED without prejudice to them being reasserted in a federal habeas corpus petition after exhausting available state remedies. (3) Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1), Plaintiffs remaining § 1983 claims against the SATF Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim for relief. (4) This dismissal counts as a “strike” for purposes of
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (5) The Clerk of Court is INSTRUCTED to send notice of this dismissal to the Manager of the Three Strikes List for the Southern District of Texas at [email protected].
SO ORDERED. DA S. MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: Corpus Christi, Texas October a 2021
2/2
Reference
- Status
- Unknown