Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

Henry v. Roberts — District court adopts magistrate’s recommendation dismissing inmate’s § 1983 civil rights claims

Reported / Citable

Case
Billy Henry v. Mark Roberts, et al.
Court
United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas
Judge
MARCIA A. CRONE (George W. Bush, 2003)
Date Decided
June 29, 2026
Docket No.
9:17-cv-00016
Topics
Civil Rights, § 1983, Prisoner Litigation, Motion to Dismiss
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Billy Henry, an inmate at Wainwright Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, filed a pro se and in forma pauperis civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against numerous defendants including Mark Roberts and others. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Christine Stetson for consideration pursuant to standard referral procedures.

The Court’s Holding

The magistrate judge issued two reports and recommendations for dismissal. In Report #95 (March 13, 2026), the magistrate recommended granting a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Reeves, Turner, Allen, Wheat, and Gross. In Report #100 (May 27, 2026), the magistrate recommended dismissing Henry’s claims against Defendants Roberts, Pipkins, Davis, McGinnis, and Platt for failure to state a claim upon statutory screening. The plaintiff filed no objections to either report.

District Judge Marcia A. Crone adopted both recommendations, finding the magistrate judge’s findings of fact and conclusions of law to be correct. The court entered a final judgment in accordance with the magistrate’s recommendations.

Key Takeaways

  • Inmate’s § 1983 civil rights complaint against prison officials dismissed
  • Magistrate judge recommendations adopted without modification
  • Multiple defendants dismissed either on motion or for failure to state a claim

Why It Matters

This order reflects the continued application of screening procedures in prisoner civil rights litigation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires courts to dismiss frivolous claims or those failing to state a viable cause of action. The reliance on magistrate judges to manage pro se inmate cases remains a standard administrative practice in federal district courts.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top