Angel-Crowell v. TDCJ Mark W. Michael's Unit

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION § BRANDON JAMES ANGEL- § CROWELL, #02157883, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:23-cv-47-JDK-KNM § SGT. UNKNOWN PAYNE, et al., § § Defendants. § § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Brandon James Angel-Crowell, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition.

On February 21, 2023, Judge Mitchell issued a Report recommending that the Court dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff’s claim against the TDCJ Michael Unit for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C §§ 1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2). Docket No. 13. A copy of this Report was sent to Plaintiff, who received it on February 28, 2023, but has not filed objections. Docket No. 23.

This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law.

Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en bane), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).

Here, Plaintiff did not object in the prescribed period. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews the legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law’).

Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 13) as the findings of this Court. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs claim against the Michael Unit is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 28rd day of March, 2023. qe J Korb JHKREMYD. KERN DLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE