Langston v. Harris

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION CHRISTOPHER LANGSTON, § #2388668, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:25-cv-422-JDK-JDL § FNU HARRIS, et al., § § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Christopher Langston, a prisoner incarcerated within the Coffield 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 John D. Love for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case. On December 5, 2025, Judge Love issued a Report (Docket No. 10) recommending that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Harris (grievance inspector) and Unknown First-Shift Lieutenant be dismissed, with prejudice, for the failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Judge Love further recommended that Plaintiff’s force allegations against Defendant Odo B. should remain pending. A copy of this Report was mailed to the parties, and the docket reflects that Plaintiff received a copy on December 15, 2025. Docket No. 11. Neither party filed objections nor otherwise responded to the Report, and the time for doing so has passed. This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service 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. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). Here, no objections were filed. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews the 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 Report 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 Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Docket No. 10. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Harris and Unknown First-Shift Lieutenant are DISMISSED, with prejudice, under 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b)(1). Plaintiff claims against Defendant Odo B. shall remain pending. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 5th day of February, 2026. o>, A Kom UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE