Coronado v. Lennox et al, No. 5:2012cv00044 - Document 15 (N.D. Tex. 2013)

Court Description: Order Adopting Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations. It is, therefore, ORDERED: Plaintiff's objections are overruled. Civil Action No. 5:12-CV-00044-C and all claims alleged therein are DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous an d for failure to state a claim. Any pending motions are DENIED. The dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint does not release Plaintiff or the institution where his is incarcerated from the obligation to pay any filing fee previously imposed. Plain tiff is advised that if he appeals this Order, he will be required to pay the appeal fee of $455.00 pursuant to the PLRA, and he must submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a 6-month Certificate of Inmate Trust Account at the same time he files his notice of Appeal. Judgment shall be entered accordingly. re: 11 Findings and Recommendations on re: 1 Complaint, filed by Enrique Coronado. (Ordered by Judge Sam R Cummings on 2/5/2013) (lkw)

Download PDF
Coronado v. Lennox et al Doc. 15 THE LINITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUBBOCK DIVISION TN ENRIQUE CORONADO, Institutional ID No. 43173-198. $ $ $ Plaintiff, $ $ $ crvrl ACTTON No. 5:12-CV-00044-C $ NFN LENNOX, et al., $ $ $ Defendants. ECF ORDER Plaintiff Enrique Coronado, acting pro se, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. $ 1983 on March 13,2012, complaining that employees of the Giles W. Dalby Correctional Facility, a private correctional facility in Post, Texas, operated under contract with the United States Bureau of Prisons, were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff s dental and medical needs, retaliated against him and harassed him for filing grievances, and violated his due process rights for imposing disciplinary sanctions. Plaintiff was granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis by Order dated April 27 ,2012. The Defendants have not filed an answer. On April 27,2012,the complaint was transferred to the docket ofthe United States Magistrate Judge, who conducted an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Spears v. McCotter, 766 F ,2d 179, 1 8l -82 (5th Cir. 1998) on June 14,20l2,and reviewed authenticated prison records from the Dalby Facility. When Plaintiff failed to consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge, she completed the preliminary screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $$ 1915 and l9l5A, filed a Report and Recommendation on October 15,2012, and transferred the complaint back to this Court. Plaintiff filed a reply and objections to the Report and Recommendation on October 26,2012, and January 22,2013. Dockets.Justia.com The undersigned District Judge has made an independent examination ofthe record in this case and finds that Plaintiffs objections should be overruled and the Magistrate Judge's findings and conclusions should be ADOPTED. It is, therefore, ORDERED: (l) Plaintiff (2) Civil Action No. s objections are overruled. 5 : l2-CV-000 44-C and all claims alleged therein are DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. (3) Any pending motions are DENIED. (4) The dismissal of Plaintiff s complaint does not release Plaintifforthe institution where he is incarcerated from the obligation to pay any filing fee previously imposed. See 28 U.S.C. l9l5(bXl) ("Notwithstanding subsection (a), $ if a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma pauperis, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee.") (emphasis added); Hatchet v. Nettles,20l F.3d 651,654 (5th Cir. 2000) ("No relief from an order directing payment of the (5) filing fee should be granted for a voluntary dismissal."). Plaintiff is advised that if he appeals this Order, he will be required to pay the appeal fee of $455.00 pursuant to the PLRA, and he must submit an application to proceed informa pauperis and a 6-month Certificate of Inmate Trust Account at the same time he files his notice of appeal. Judgment shall be entered accordingly. Dated February / 3 ,2013. District Judge

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.