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

ISAAC ZARATE, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-CV-77-RWS-JBB § WARDEN COGER, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER Plaintiff Isaac Zarate, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled and numbered civil rights lawsuit under

complaining of alleged violations of his constitutional rights. Docket No. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter in accordance with

. Plaintiff’s amended complaint raises a number of allegations, including retaliation against him by Sgt. Morrison, the writing of disciplinary cases when he was not guilty by Sgt. Jackson and Sgt. Morrison, findings of guilt in these disciplinary cases by Captain Ricks and Captain Su, denials of grievances by Wardens Coger, Feazel, and Gould, improper classification and interference with legal proceedings by Major Presell, an inadequate investigation into an offender protection complaint by Sgt. Baird, an inappropriate use of pepper spray by Officer Snead, failure to escort him to the infirmary after this incident by Officers Jenkins and Dunbar, and denial of medical care by Nurses Russian and Johnson as well as mental health care counselor Ms. Ehler. See Docket No. 14. After review of Plaintiff’s amended complaint, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation on August 27, 2025, recommending that Plaintiff’s claims against Wardens Coger, Feazel, Gould; Mental Health Counselor Ehler; Major Presell; Sgt. Jackson; Sgt. Jenny Baird; Officers Dunbar and Jenkins; and Nurses Russian and Johnson be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Docket No. 46 at 13. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against Sgt. Morrison and use of force

claim against Officer Snead be dismissed without prejudice, subject to Plaintiff’s right to file, within twenty-one (21) days of the adoption of the Report and Recommendation, an amended complaint that cures, if and where possible, the deficiencies with respect to those claims as set out in the Report.

The Magistrate Judge recommended that in the event Plaintiff fails to adequately amend his complaint within that timeframe, Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against Sgt. Morrison and use of force claim against Officer Snead be dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff received a copy of this Report on October 4, 2025 (Docket No. 51), but no objections have been received. Because no objections have been filed, any aggrieved party is barred from de novo review by the District Judge of the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Moreover, except upon grounds of plain error, an aggrieved

party is barred from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. See Duarte v. City of Lewisville, Texas,

(5th Cir. 2017); Arriaga v. Laxminarayan, Case No. 4:21-CV-00203-RAS,

, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2021). The Court has reviewed the pleadings and documents in this case and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson,

(5th Cir.), cert. denied,

(1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law’). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 46) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that the Plaintiff's claims against Wardens Coger, Feazel, Gould; Mental Health Counselor Ehler; Major Presell; Sgt. Jackson; Sgt. Jenny Baird; Officers Dunbar and Jenkins; and Nurses Russian and Johnson are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. It is further ORDERED that the Plaintiffs retaliation claim against Sgt. Morrison and use of force claim against Officer Snead are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE subject to Plaintiff's right to file, within twenty-one (21) days from the date of receipt of this Order, an amended complaint that cures the deficiencies with respect to those claims as explained in the Report and Recommendation. Should Plaintiff fail to adequately amend the complaint within that timeframe, the Court will enter a Final Judgment dismissing Plaintiff's retaliation claim against Sgt. Morrison and use of force claim against Officer Snead with prejudice.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 12th day of December, 2025.

[Dohert LU Lbrpectsr G2. ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3