Reported / Citable
Background
Texas Department of Criminal Justice prisoner Matthew D. Moore brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging constitutional violations in prison. The matter was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge John D. Love.
On June 30, 2026, the magistrate judge ordered service and responses from defendants Rodriguez, James, and Fuller. In a separate report and recommendation, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal of East Texas Treatment Facility, Hudson, Canul, and Townsend under the prisoner-screening statutes, and recommended treating defendants omitted from Moore’s amended complaint as voluntarily dismissed.
The Court’s Holding
The district court adopted the report and recommendation after Moore did not object. Applying review for clear error, abuse of discretion, and conclusions contrary to law, the court found none.
The court dismissed Moore’s claims against East Texas Treatment Facility, Hudson, Canul, and Townsend with prejudice for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2). It also directed the clerk to terminate FNU Scmitd as voluntarily dismissed.
Key Takeaways
- Failure to object to a magistrate judge’s report resulted in non-de-novo review.
- The claims against four defendants were dismissed with prejudice at screening for failure to state a claim.
- Claims against Rodriguez, James, and Fuller remained subject to the earlier service order.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the screening role of §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2) in prisoner civil-rights litigation. It also underscores that a party’s failure to timely object to a report and recommendation narrows the district court’s review.