□ Southern District of Texas ENTERED November 15, 2022 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION PAUL ALLEN YOUNG, § § Plaintiff, § § V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00089 § CITY OF ROCKPORT, et al., § § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie Hampton’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R’”). (D.E. 18). The M&R recommends that the Court: e DISMISS with prejudice Plaintiffs false arrest and false imprisonment claims against the City of Rockport, the City of Aransas Pass, and Aransas County as frivolous until such time as Plaintiff satisfies the conditions set forth in Heck; e DISMISS with prejudice Plaintiff's claims against Burns, Vanmeador, Solis, Aradt, Pena, and Browning in their individual capacities—arising from their conduct in denying Plaintiff addresses or providing wrong addresses—as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and e DISMISS with prejudice Plaintiffs municipal liability claims against Aransas County—arising from [Aransas County Detention Center (““ACDC”)] officials denying Plaintiff addresses or providing wrong addresses—as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Id. at 18. The M&R also recommends that the Court count this dismissal as a strike pursuant to

(g).

The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R. See

(b)(1); FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b); General Order No. 2002-13. No objection has been filed. 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,

(Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Badaiki v. Schlumberger

1/2

Holdings Corp.,

, 743-44 (S.D. Tex. 2021) (Eskridge, J.). Having 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. (D.E. 18). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following: (1) Plaintiff's false arrest and false imprisonment claims against the City of Rockport; the City of Aransas Pass; and Aransas County are DISMISSED with prejudice to their being asserted again until the Heck v. Humphrey,

(1994) conditions are met. (D.E. 1; D.E. 12). (2) Plaintiff's claims against ACDC Officers Burns; Vanmeador; Solis; Aradt; Pena; and Browning in their individual capacities—arising from their conduct in denying Plaintiff addresses or providing wrong addresses—-are DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (D.E. 1; D.E. 12). (3) Plaintiff's municipal liability claims against Aransas County—arising from ACDC officials denying Plaintiff addresses or providing wrong addresses—are DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (D.E. 1; D.E. 12). (4) This dismissal shall COUNT as a STRIKE for purposes of

(g). 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. | | D . MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: Corpus Christi, Texas November JS“, 2023

2/2