Revels v. Guthrie, No. 9:2009cv00132 - Document 5 (E.D. Tex. 2009)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Accordingly, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and the report of the magistrate judge is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate judges recommendation. Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 10/13/09. (ljw, )

Download PDF
Revels v. Guthrie Doc. 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION KEVIN L. REVELS § VS. § JUDGE JUDITH GUTHRIE § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:09-CV-132 MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff Kevin L. Revels, a prisoner confined at the Allred Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Judge Judith Guthrie. The court ordered that this matter be referred to the Honorable Earl S. Hines, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The magistrate judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. The magistrate judge recommends dismissing the case. The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such order, along with the record, pleadings and all available evidence. No objections to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge were filed by the parties. Dockets.Justia.com ORDER Accordingly, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and the report of the magistrate judge is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate judge’s recommendation. SIGNED this the 13 day of October, 2009. ____________________________ Thad Heartfield 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.