Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT veonuay □□□ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION DWAYNE RIVENS-BAKER, JR., § Plaintiff, V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00334 BRYAN COLLIER, ef al., Defendants. :

~ ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie Hampton’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 34). The M&R recommends that the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. /d. at 1. 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); Powell v. Litton Loan Servicing, L.P., No. 4:14-CV-02700,

, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 18, 2015) (Harmon, J.) (citation omitted). 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 in its entirety. (D.E. 34). The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (D.E. 20). Accordingly, the Court:

1/2

e DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Sgt. Salinas in his individual capacity for monetary damages; e DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against Assistant Warden Samaniego and Executive Director Collier in their supervisory and individual capacities for allegedly putting into place allegedly unconstitutional use-of-force polices; e DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim—trelated to TDCI policies allegedly encouraging excessive and unnecessary use of force— against Executive Director Collier in his official capacity for injunctive relief; e DENIES Defendants’ motion with respect to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against Sgt. Salinas and Sgt. Anciso in their individual capacities for monetary damages; and e DENIES Defendants’ motion with respect to Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Assistant Warden Samaniego in his individual capacity for monetary damages. SO ORDERED. ; | DA > RALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas February 2642025

2/2