Williams v. Bowie County Correctional Center Sheriff Prince et al, No. 5:2012cv00020 - Document 21 (E.D. Tex. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 20 Report and Recommendations GRANTING 17 and 19 motions for sum jgm and entering a final judgment,. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 12/11/2012. (sm, )

Download PDF
Williams v. Bowie County Correctional Center Sheriff Prince et al Doc. 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION BRIAN J. WILLIAMS § v. § BOWIE COUNTY CORRECTIONAL CENTER SHERIFF PRINCE, ET AL. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12cv20 MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT The Plaintiff Brian Williams, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaining of alleged violations of his constitutional rights in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division. This Court ordered that the case be referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges. As Defendants, Williams named the Bowie County Sheriff, James Prince; the Bowie County Correctional Center Medical Department, Warden Campbell, a nurse named Michaelis, and a physician named Dr. Shah. Williams complained that he was subjected to deliberate indifference during his confinement in the Bowie County Correctional Center, with regard to an incident in which he fell off of a top bunk. The Defendants were ordered to answer and filed motions for summary judgment. After review of the pleadings, the motions for summary judgment, and the summary judgment evidence and exhibits submitted by the parties, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the motions for summary judgment be granted and that the lawsuit be dismissed. A copy of this Report was sent to Williams at his last known address, return receipt requested, but no objections have been received; accordingly, he is barred from de novo review by the district judge 1 Dockets.Justia.com of those findings, conclusions, and recommendations and, except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the Report 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, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918, 109 S.Ct. 3243 (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.”). It is accordingly ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (docket no. 20) is hereby ADOPTED as . the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment (docket no.’s 17 and 19) be GRANTED and that the above-styled civil action be and hereby is DISMISSED with prejudice. It is further ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby DENIED. SIGNED this 11th day of December, 2012. ____________________________________ MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.