IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

§ CLARENCE MOORE, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:23-cv-34-JDK-KNM § BRENNAN SHAY, et al., § § Defendants. § §

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Clarence Moore, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice inmate proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights lawsuit under

. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell pursuant to

. Before the Court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Docket No. 35. On June 24, 2024, Judge Mitchell issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss this case with prejudice. Judge Mitchell reviewed the parties’ arguments and summary judgment evidence and determined that Plaintiff’s excessive force claim lacks merit and that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Docket No. 11. Plaintiff filed objections. Docket No. 67. Where a party timely objects to the Report and Recommendation, the Court reviews the objected-to findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo.

(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,

(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other

grounds by statute,

(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). In his objections, Plaintiff argues that the Hudson factors weigh in his favor because Defendants maliciously and sadistically used force to harm him after he was restrained on the floor and posed no threat to them. Docket No. 67 at 2. But as the Report explains, surveillance video submitted by Defendants shows that Plaintiff continued to struggle after being taken to the floor and until officers

were able to subdue him. Docket No. 35, Ex. A. Also, the documented injuries and his complaints to the nurse are consistent with Plaintiff hitting his head while being taken to the floor and not with a malicious and sadistic use of force. See

Ex. C (infirmary photos after incident); Docket No. 37, Ex. E (TDCJ medical records). Further, Plaintiff’s objections ignore the fact that he precipitated the use-of-force incident by resisting officers and assaulting another

inmate. Docket No. 35, Ex. A;

Ex. D. As in Waddleton v. Rodriguez,

, 254–56 (5th Cir. 2018), Plaintiff’s actions here created the need for force, and the summary judgment evidence demonstrates that the force used was not excessive to the need. Having conducted a de novo review of the record in this case and the Magistrate Judge’s Report, the Court has determined that the Report is correct, and Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 59) as the opinion of the District Court and GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 35). Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 12th day of September, 2024. C5, A Kom UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE