Cain v. Texas Tech Health Sciences Center et al, No. 5:2020cv00131 - Document 57 (N.D. Tex. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE RE: 55 Findings and Recommendations on 1 Complaint filed by Kenneth N. Cain. Plaintiff's claims for monetary relief against all Defendants in their official capacities are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and Plaintiff's remaining claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim. This dismissal will count as a qualifying dismissal under 28 U.S.C.& #167; 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(l), and Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1996). Dismissal of this action does not release Plaintiff from the obligation to pay any filing fee previously imposed. Plaintiff is advised that if he appeals t his order, he will be required to pay the appeal fee of $505.00 pursuant to the PLRA. He must also submit an application to proceed informa pauperis and a 6-month certificate of inmate trust account at the same time he files his notice ofappeal. All relief not expressly granted and any pending motions are denied. (Ordered by Senior Judge Sam R. Cummings on 3/7/2022) (krr)

Download PDF
Cain v. Texas Tech Health Sciences Center et al Doc. 57 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUBBOCK DIVISION KENNETH N. CAIN, Institutional ID No. 0 I 46 17 I 0, SID No. 06352412, Previous TDCJ ID No. 0107 4522 $ $ $ $ $ PlaintitT. $ $ $ CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-CV-00131-C $ TEXAS TECH HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER, el al, $ $ $ Defendants $ ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE .ruD GE Plaintiff filed this Section 1983 action alleging that Defendants violated his constitutional rights while he was incarcerated in the Montford Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ). (Doc. l). United States Magistrate Judge D. Gordon Bryant, Jr. conducted preliminary screening of Plaintiff s complaint and recommends that the Court: (a) dismiss Plaintiff s claims for monetary reliefagainst all Defendants in their official capacities without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and (b) dismiss Plainti{f s remaining claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. $$ 1915(e)(2XB) and 1915A(b). (Doc.55). Plaintiflfiled no objections, and the time to do so has passed. The Court has examined the record and reviewed the findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff s claims for monetary relief against all Defendants in their official capacities are DISMISSED WITHOUT Dockets.Justia.com PREruDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and Plaintiff s remaining claims are DISMISSED WITH PREruDICE for failure to state a claim. This dismissal will count as a qualiffing dismissal under 28 U.S.C. S$ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(bXl), and Adepegba v. Ortiz-Marquez, 140 S. Ct. Hammons,103 F.3d 383 (sth Cir. 1996). See also Lomax l72l v. (2020). Dismissal of this action does not release Plaintiff from the obligation to pay any filing fee previously imposed. See llilliams v. Roberts,116 F.3d 1126,1128 (5th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff is advised that if he appeals this order, he will be required to pay the appeal fee of $505.00 pursuantto the PLRA.I He must also 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. All reliefnot expressly granted and any pending motions are denied. SO ORDERED. Dated March 7 ,zozz. /4'?'"24 SA C lor United ' Prison l-itigation Rclbrm Act of 1995. ') GS District J

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.