Reported / Citable
Background
Timothy D. Huricks, a prisoner previously confined at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s Stiles Unit, brought a pro se civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Schocolate Lewis, Jacquelyn Womack, and Jovanni Bolden. He proceeded in forma pauperis.
The case was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Christine L. Stetson. She recommended denying Huricks’s motions for summary judgment and injunctive relief and granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. After receiving an extension through August 26, 2026, Huricks sought a second extension to object to the report and recommendation, stating that he was on lockdown. No objections had been filed when the district court issued its order.
The Court’s Holding
District Judge Michael J. Truncale adopted the magistrate judge’s findings of fact and conclusions of law after reviewing the report and recommendation, the record, the pleadings, and the available evidence. The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied Huricks’s motions for summary judgment and for injunctive and declaratory relief.
The court also denied Huricks’s second request for additional time to object. It found that he had not shown the lockdown prevented him from meeting the court’s deadlines, noting that he filed a five-page motion seeking a show-cause order, preliminary injunction, and temporary restraining order on the same day as the extension request. The court stated that it would enter a final judgment consistent with the order.
Key Takeaways
- The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in full.
- The defendants obtained summary judgment, while Huricks’s competing summary-judgment motion and request for injunctive and declaratory relief were denied.
- A claimed lockdown did not justify a second extension because Huricks did not demonstrate that it impeded his ability to meet the deadline.
Why It Matters
The order resolves the parties’ dispositive motions in the defendants’ favor and directs that final judgment be entered. It also illustrates that a litigant seeking more time must substantiate how the asserted circumstances actually prevented compliance with the court’s deadline.