Wilson v. Texas Civil Commitment Center Facility Director, No. 5:2020cv00267 - Document 22 (N.D. Tex. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE RE: 20 Findings and Recommendations on 1 Complaint. (Ordered by Judge James Wesley Hendrix on 6/28/2021) (krr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Wilson v. Texas Civil Commitment Center Facility Director Doc. 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUBBOCK DIVISION GERALD B. WILSON, Plaintiff, No. 5:20-CV-267-H TEXAS CIVIL COMMITMENT CENTER FACILITY DIRECTOR. Defendant ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE TED STATES MAGIS TE JL'DGE Gerald B. Wilson filed his Complaint on November 12,2020, followed by a de facto Amended Complaint on December 14,2020. Dkt. Nos. 1, 8. On May 11, 2021, United States Magistrate Judge D. Gordon Bryant recommended that the Court dismiss all of Wilson's claims with prejudice in accordance with 28 U.S.C. g 1915(eX2)(B). Dkt. No. 20. Wilson frled his objections to Judge Bryant's report and recommendation on May 20,2021. Dkt. No. 21. Aft:r reviewing the objections and the reievant filings, the Court finds rhat the objections should be ovemrled. "The district judge must detennine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposirion that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72@)(3); 0 see 28 U.S.C. 6360)(1). In conftast, the district judge reviews any unobjected-to proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations for plain error. US- ex rel. Steury v. Cardinal Heahh, Inc., 735 F.3d202,205 (5th Cn. 2013) ("Pllain error review applies when a party did not object to a magistrate judge's findings of fact, conclusions of 1aw, or recommendation to the district court, so long as the paffy was served with notice of the consequences of faililg to Dockets.Justia.com object. ") (crting Douglass v. United Sens, Auto. Ass'n, 79 F .3d 1415, 1428 (sth Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by 28 U .S.C. $ 636OX 1). Wilson's sole objection pertains to Judge Bryant's characterization of prisonerrelated claims regarding access to the courts as "insffuctive" on the issue ofwhether this case should be dismissed under Section 1915(e)(2XB). Dkt. No. 2l at 1-2. Wilson contends that invoiuntary inpatient treatment does not subject individuals to plisonlike conditions and that the Court is precluded from considering prisoner-related cases in addressing the merits of his claim. Id. at2. Butboth prisoners and civii right of access to the courts. See Welsh v. Corea committees have a constitutional Care Recotery Sols.,845 F. App'x 311, 319 (5th Cir. 2021). And the Fifth Circuit has previously considered anaiogous prisoner-related cases in resolving the rights of involuntary civil committees. Id. ("We have previously applied Lewis to an access-to-courts claim raised by a civil1y committed SVP.") (citing leus t.Casey,518U.S.343,351-53(1996);Dayv.Seiler,560 F.App'x316,318-19(5thCir. 2014)). Specifica1ly, the Fifth Circuit has done so in cases addressing access-to-courts claims raised by a civil committee. Id, The Court acknowledges Wilson's algument that he is not a prisoner and has distinct rights from a prisoner, but that does not preclude it ftom considering analogous prisoner cases as the Fifth Circuit has done. Therefore, the Court may consider prisoner-related cases when resolving a civil committee's rights. Accoldingly, Wilson's objection is overuied. The Court has examined the record and reviewed the unobjected-to poltions of the FCR for plain error and finds none. Furthermole, the Coult, has reviewed the objected-to portions of the FCR de novo and overruled the objections. Accordingly, the Coult accepts Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and 2 dismisses all of Wilson's claims against all def,endants with prejudice for failure to stare a clarm under 28 U.S.C. $ 1915. The Court wi-li enter a judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 in a separate document. So ordered on Jwe Z I , 202t. J 3 WESLEY HEND D STATES 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.
