Copeland v. Livingston et al, No. 9:2008cv00094 - Document 29 (E.D. Tex. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of U S Magistrate Judge as the opinion of the District Court. The above civil action is dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and fof failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The court dec lines jurisdiction over the pla's state law claims, including but not limited to his claims under the Texas Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, and so such claims are DISMISSED with prejudice as to their refiling in federal court, but without prejudice as to their refiling in the courts of the State of Texas. The statute of limitations on these claims shallbe tolled from the date that the lawsuit was filed, May 10, 2008, until 30 days after the date of entry of final judgment. 28 U.S.C. §1367(d). Finally, it is ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby DENIED. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 8/7/09. (djh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION JESSE COPELAND § v. § BRAD LIVINGSTON, ET AL. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:08cv94 MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT The Plaintiff Jesse Copeland, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaining of alleged violations of his constitutional rights. 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. Copeland complained of an incident on July 21, 2006, saying that an Islamic religious service which he was attending was disrupted. He received a disciplinary case as a result of this incident, charging him with failure to obey an order. As a result of the incident, Copeland was not permitted to return to Islamic services for approximately six months. Copeland also complained of certain policies which he says were implemented by the unit administration. The Magistrate Judge conducted an evidentiary hearing on February 19, 2009. Following this hearing, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the lawsuit be dismissed as frivolous. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that the Court decline jurisdiction over Plaintiff s state-law claims under the Texas Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, and that the statute of limitations on these claims be tolled from the date of filing of the lawsuit until 30 days after the date of entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(d). 1 A copy of this Report was sent to Copeland s last known address, return receipt requested, but was returned marked refused. No objections have been received, and so Copeland is barred from de novo review by the district judge 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 carefully reviewed the pleadings, documents, and testimony in this case, as well as the Report of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has concluded that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. It is accordingly ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that the above-styled civil action be and hereby is DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. It is further ORDERED that the Court declines jurisdiction over the Plaintiff s state law claims, including but not limited to his claims under the Texas Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, and so such claims are DISMISSED with prejudice as to their refiling in federal court, but without prejudice as to their refiling in the courts of the State of Texas. The statute of limitations on these claims shall be tolled from the date that the lawsuit was filed, May 10, 2008, until 30 days after the date of entry of final judgment. 28 U.S.C. §1367(d). Finally, it is ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby DENIED. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 7 day of August, 2009. ___________________________________ Ron Clark, 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.
