Howard v. Prince, No. 5:2018cv00029 - Document 53 (E.D. Tex. 2019)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT for 51 Report and Recommendation. It is ORDERED the Defendants motion for summary judgment (docket no. 44) is GRANTED and the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action are DENIED. Signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 3/14/2019. (slo, )

Download PDF
Howard v. Prince Doc. 53 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION NORRIS HOWARD § v. § SHERIFF JAMES PRINCE § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18cv29 MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT The Plaintiff Norris Howard, 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. The sole named Defendant is Bowie County Sheriff James Prince. Plaintiff complained he was unlawfully confined in the Bowie County Correctional Center when he is not a prisoner of the State of Texas and has no charges or convictions from the State of Texas. Sheriff Prince filed a motion for summary judgment stating Plaintiff is a prisoner of the State of Arkansas being housed in Bowie County under a contract between the State of Arkansas and LaSalle Southwest Corrections, the corporation which operates the Bowie County Correctional Center. Plaintiff filed a reply arguing his confinement in Texas is unconstitutional. After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending the motion for summary judgment be granted and the lawsuit dismissed with prejudice. A copy of this Report was sent to Plaintiff but no objections have been received; accordingly, he 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 proposed factual findings 1 Dockets.Justia.com 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 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 the Report of the Magistrate Judge (docket no. 51) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (docket no. 44) is GRANTED and the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action, specifically including but not limited to the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (docket no. 13) are DENIED. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 14th day of March, 2019. ____________________________________ RODNEY GILSTRAP 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.