From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Strong v. Lumpkin

United States District Court, Southern District of Texas
Aug 15, 2022
Civil Action 2:21-CV-00261 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 15, 2022)

Opinion

Civil Action 2:21-CV-00261

08-15-2022

TABARI S. STRONG, Plaintiff, v. BOBBY LUMPKIN, Defendant.


ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NELVA GONZALES RAMOS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

On July 13, 2022, United States Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock issued his “Memorandum and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge” (M&R, D.E. 21), recommending that Defendant's motion to dismiss (D.E. 15) be granted in part and denied in part and that this action be dismissed with prejudice. The parties were provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge's M&R. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); General Order No. 2002-13. No objections have been timely filed.

When no timely objection to a magistrate judge's M&R is filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge's M&R. Guillory v. PPG Indus., Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996)).

Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Magistrate Judge's M&R (D.E. 21), and all other relevant documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the 1 /

Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss (D.E. 15) based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and Eleventh Amendment immunity is DENIED because Plaintiff possesses standing to bring his claims and because the Eleventh Amendment bar does not apply to the prospective injunctive relief requested in this case. The motion to dismiss is GRANTED regarding Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, due process, and equal protection claims against Defendant. Those claims are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim for relief. The Court ORDERS that dismissal of this case counts as a “strike” against Plaintiff for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and INSTRUCTS the Clerk of Court to send notice of this dismissal to the Manager of the Three Strikes List for the Southern District of Texas at Three_Strikes@txs.uscourts.gov.

ORDERED.


Summaries of

Strong v. Lumpkin

United States District Court, Southern District of Texas
Aug 15, 2022
Civil Action 2:21-CV-00261 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 15, 2022)
Case details for

Strong v. Lumpkin

Case Details

Full title:TABARI S. STRONG, Plaintiff, v. BOBBY LUMPKIN, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Southern District of Texas

Date published: Aug 15, 2022

Citations

Civil Action 2:21-CV-00261 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 15, 2022)