Dariou D. Lewis v. Donna King, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION DARIOUS D. LEWIS, #2401921, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:25-cv-129-JDK-JDL § DONNA KING, et al., § § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Darious D. Lewis, a prisoner of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love, for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.

On January 22, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docket No. 32) be granted with respect to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their official capacities and denied in all other respects. Docket No. 60. A copy of this Report was sent to Plaintiff, who received it on February 2, 2026. Docket No. 61. None of the parties filed written objections.

This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(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 Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).

Here, no party objected in the prescribed period. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews his legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”).

Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 60) as the findings of this Court.

Defendants’ motion (Docket No. 32)is GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiff's claims against Defendants in their official capacities are dismissed. In all other respects, Defendants’ motion (Docket No. 32) is DENIED.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 27th day of February, 2026.

JHREMYD. KERN DLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE