UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:22-cv-00230 Paul La’Mark Little, Plaintiff, v. Christopher A. Holman et al., Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff Paul La’Mark Little, an inmate confined in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) proceeding pro se, filed this civil-rights lawsuit concerning prison disciplinary proceed- ings. This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love. On December 2, 2022, the magistrate judge issued a report (Doc. 19) recommending that plaintiff’s lawsuit be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to

. Plaintiff filed timely objec- tions. Doc. 22. In his objections, plaintiff sought to amend his pleading from “a[n] erroneous procedural due process violation to a more suitable substantive due process violation” that would remove his claims “concerning a[n] ineligible protected liberty in- terest.” Jd. The magistrate judge then issued an order (Doc. 23) permit- ting plaintiff to amend his claims as requested. Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 26) is now before the court. Much like his initial complaint, plaintiff complains of several prison discipli- nary infractions against him. He argues that he was falsely ac- cused of a prison murder, was not notified of the charges or a hear- ing, and that prison officials “altered several offense reports.” Plaintiff argues that prison officials violated his due-process rights by placing him in restrictive housing because of the disciplinary infractions.

When timely objections to a magistrate judge’s report and rec- ommendation are filed, the court reviews them de novo. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,

(5th Cir. 1996). Plaintiffs objections will be overruled, and his amended com- plaint fares no better. He has not identified the denial of a pro- tected liberty interest stemming from any prison action. See Toney y. Owens,

(5th Cir. 2015). Because the prison administrative decisions complained-of do not create protected liberty interests —and plaintiff is ineligible for mandatory super- vision under Texas law—due process considerations are not trig- gered. See Luken v. Scott,

(5th Cir. 1995); Madison Parker,

(5th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff’s placement in restrictive housing, without more, is insufficient to implicate constitutional concerns. Further, prison officials’ purported fail- ure to follow their own rules or policies is similarly insufficient to state a civil-rights claim. Hernandez v. Estelle,

(5th Cir. 1986). Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report de novo, the court accepts the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff’s ob- jections are overruled. Doc. 22. Plaintiff’s lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice for the failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. All pending motions are denied. So ordered by the court on March 21, 2023. lobed J! CAMPBELL BARKER United States District Judge

_2-