Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Ornelas v. Haynes, 9:18-CV-65. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. Texas Number: infdco20190312d97 Visitors: 35
Filed: Mar. 09, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 09, 2019
Summary: ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RON CLARK , District Judge . Plaintiff Juan Javier Ornelas, a prisoner previously confined at the Eastham Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Leontyne Haynes. The court ordered that this matter be referred to the Honorable Zack H
More

ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Juan Javier Ornelas, a prisoner previously confined at the Eastham Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Leontyne Haynes.

The court ordered that this matter be referred to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The Magistrate Judge recommends denying defendant's motion to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, along with the record and the pleadings. Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.

The court has conducted a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). Plaintiff alleges the defendant retaliated against him for filing a grievance and reporting alleged sexual abuse. The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that plaintiff had alleged facts that state a claim of retaliation, and that it would be premature to dismiss the action at this stage of the proceedings.

ORDER

Accordingly, defendant's objections (document no. 30) are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and the report of the Magistrate Judge (document no. 29) is ADOPTED. Defendants' motion to dismiss (document no. 14) is DENIED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer