February 19, 2025 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

CASSANDRA BENTON, § CIVIL ACTION NO Plaintiff, § 4:24-cv-00113 § § vs. § JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE § § TEXAS DEPARTMENT § OF CRIMINAL § JUSTICE, § Defendant. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff proceeds pro se and filed a complaint naming Defendant Texas Department of Criminal Justice on January 10, 2024. Dkt 1. The matter was referred for pretrial management to Magistrate Judge Christina A. Bryan. Dkt 4. Pending is a Memorandum and Recommendation by Judge Bryan recommending that this case be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim because (i) TDCJ isn’t a “person” for purposes of a claim for damages under

, (ii) Plaintiff pleads negligence only, but a claim under 1983 requires intent, and (iii) Plaintiff doesn’t allege a claim for deprivation of a recognized life, liberty, or property interest. Dkt 15. The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) &

(b)(1)(C); see also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir 1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v PPG Industries Inc,

(5th Cir 2005), citing Douglass v United Services Automobile Association,

(5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b) advisory committee note (1983). No party filed objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation. No clear error appears upon review and consideration of the Memorandum and Recommendation, the record, and the applicable law. The Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and Order of this Court. Dkt 15. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This is a FINAL JUDGMENT. SO ORDERED. Signed on February 18, 2025, at Houston, Texas.

Z. Hon. Charles Eskridg United States District Judge