Wilson v. Texas Civil Commitment Center Facility Director, No. 5:2020cv00267 - Document 17 (N.D. Tex. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE re: 15 Findings and Recommendations on re: 1 Complaint, filed by Gerald B Wilson, 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Gerald B Wilson. (Ordered by Judge James Wesley Hendrix on 3/11/2021) (lkw) Modified text on 3/11/2021 (lkw).

Download PDF
Wilson v. Texas Civil Commitment Center Facility Director Doc. 17 Case 5:20-cv-00267-H-BQ Document 17 Filed 03/11/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID 96 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUBBOCK DIVISION GERALD B. WILSON, Plaintiff, No. 5:20-CV-267-H TEXAS CIVL COMMITMENT CENTER FACILITY DIRECTOR. Defendant. ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE L]NITED STATES MA GISTRATE JUDGE Gerald B. Wilson f,led this motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary rnjunction, alleging ongoing violations of civil rights resulting from his facility's COVID-19 resffictions. Dkt. No. 1. On December 22, 2020, United States Magistrate Judge D. Gordon Bryant recommended that the Court deny Wilson's motion without prejudice to his right to request injunctive relief rn the future should circumstances change. Dkt. No. 15. Wilson f,led his objections to Judge Bryant's report and recommendation on January 12, 2027.1 Dkt. No. 16. After conducting a de novo review of the relevant filings, along with Wilson's objections, the Court finds that the objections should be overuled. Each of Wilson's six objections are either restatements of arguments made in his Originai Complaint (Dkt. No. 1), arguments thoroughly addressed by Judge Bryant's report I The Court notes that Wilson filed his objections after the 14 days deadline. The Fifth Circuit has stated that "district courts need not consider late objections" to a report and recommendation. Scor Alford,No. 94-40486, 1995 WL 45021,6, at *2 (5th Cir, July 6, 1995). Therefore, it is within the discretion ofthe Cour-t whether to consider late-filed objections. See Loredo v. Bamhart,210 F. App'x 477 , 4I8 n. 1 (5th Cir. 2006) (quoting R odriguez v. Bowen, 857 F .2d 275, 216 71 (5th Cir. 1988)). Nevertheless, the Court finds that consideration ofWilson's late objections is in the interest of t,. justice. Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:20-cv-00267-H-BQ Document 17 Filed 03/11/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID 97 and recommendation, or mere disagreements w.ith Judge Bryant's wording. "The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72b)Q); see 28 U.S.C. $ 6360)(1). In confrast, the disuict judge reviews any unobjected-to proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations for plain error.2 The Court has examined the record and reviewed the unobjected-to portions ofthe report and recommendation for plain error and finds none. Furthermore, the Court has made a de novo review of the relevant portions of the report and recommendation. The Court overrules the objections and accepts the report and recommendation ofthe United States Magisuate Judge. So ordered on Accordingly, Wilson's request for injunctive relief is denied. March f I , zozt. J WESLEY HENDRIX D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE S * Portwood v. Schneider & McKinney P.C., No.3:20-CV-03344-X, 2020 WL 7056302, at 1 (N D. Tex. Dec 2, 2020) (Staff, J.) ("The Court reviews de novo those ponions ofthe proposed findings, conclusions, and 1 recommendation to which objection was made, and reviews the remaining proposed ltndings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error."). 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.