Young v. Brown

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION JASON WALTER YOUNG, #01641912, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:25-cv-420-JDK-KNM § JENNIFER N. BROWN, et al., § § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Jason Walter Young, a prisoner incarcerated within the Skyview Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights while imprisoned. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case. On March 3, 2026, Judge Mitchell issued a Report (Docket No. 78) recommending that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice—except for Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Taylor regarding placement in a cell naked for five days—for the failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Simultaneously, by separate order, the Magistrate Judge also directed Plaintiff to amend his complaint to provide more facts and details on that cell claim no later than April 3, 2026. Docket No. 79. The order warned Plaintiff that the failure to comply may result in the dismissal of his claims. After no response from Plaintiff, Judge Mitchell issued a second Report (Docket No. 81) recommending that Plaintiff’s cell claims against Defendant Taylor be dismissed, without prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with an order of the Court. A copy of this Report was sent to Plaintiff at his last-known address with an acknowledgment card. The docket reflects that Plaintiff received a copy of the Report on May 7, 2026. Docket No. 82. To date, however, Plaintiff has neither filed objections nor an amended complaint. The Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Servs., LLC, 875 F.3d 243, 249 (5th Cir. 2017). Here, Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Reports. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews her legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding that the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law” if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed). Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Reports and the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Reports and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket Nos. 78; 81) as the findings of this Court. Therefore, it is ORDERED that—with the exception of claims against Defendant Taylor—Plaintiffs claims are DISMISSED with prejudice for the failure to state aclaim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Taylor are DISMISSED without prejudice for the failure to comply with an order of the Court. All other motions which may be pending in this case are DENIED. So ordered and signed on this Aug 6, 2026 : wD JERQMY D/KERNODEIEE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE