Morrow v. Short
Morrow v. Short
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:21-cv-00302 Joshua William Morrow et al., Plaintiffs, V. James Clay Short et al., Defendants.
ORDER Plaintiffs Cody Taylor Lashley, Joshua William Morrow, Charles Narramore, and James Clint Thornton brought this action complain- ing of violations of the Eighth Amendment suffered while they were incarcerated at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s Louis C. Powledge Unit. Specifically, plaintiffs—all of whom participated in a prison work program in which they bred hogs—claim that defend- ants failed to furnish adequate training about and physical protection against pig-borne diseases. These failures, plaintiffs allege, caused them to contract brucellosis after they were instructed to dispose in- fected hogs. Doc. 1. Defendants moved for summary judgment. Doc. 45. United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love issued a report rec- ommending that defendants’ motion be granted on qualified immun- ity grounds and that this case be dismissed with prejudice. Doc. 63. Plaintiffs were granted an extension, until November 16, 2022, to file objections to the report and recommendation (Doc. 65), but no ob- jections have been filed and the time for doing so has passed. When a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s report, the court reviews the record only for clear error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,
79 F.3d 1415, 1420(5th Cir. 1996). Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report and being satis- fied that it contains no clear error, the court accepts its findings and recommendation. Accordingly, the report and recommendation (Doc. 63) is adopted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 45) is granted, as defendants are
entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed with prejudice. All other motions are denied as moot. So ordered by the court on December 13, 2022. flecbode BARKER United States District Judge
-2-
Reference
- Status
- Unknown