Wiggins v. Lumpkin et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
HERBERT WIGGINS 	§
VS. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23cv99
WARDEN NORSWORTHY 	§
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Herbert Wiggins, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled civil rights lawsuit. The
Court previously referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate
Judge, for consideration pursuant to applicable orders of this Court. The Magistrate Judge has
submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge recommending this case
be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge, along with the record and pleadings. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and
Recommendation.
Plaintiff originally named three individuals as defendants. The Magistrate Judge entered an
order severing the claims against the defendants other than defendant Norsworthy into a separate
lawsuit. Plaintiff asserts the Magistrate Judge erred in entering this order. Plaintiff further states
the Magistrate Judge erred by not waiting until 14 days after the severance order was entered before
submitting his Report and Recommendation.
The severance order was not dispositive of any of plaintiff’s claims. Pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72, a district judge may modify or set aside a nondispostive order
entered by a magistrate judge when it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. An objection to such
an order must be filed within 14 days of the date of the order.
The magistrate judge correctly stated that the claims against defendant Norsworthy involved
different factual allegations and legal standards than the claims against the severed defendants. As
a result, severing the claims against the other two defendants was not clearly erroneous or contrary
Case 1:23-cv-00099-MJT-ZJH Document 18 Filed 03/05/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

to law. Further, as plaintiff’s objections to the severance order have been considered by the court,
plaintiff has suffered no prejudice due to the Report and Recommendation being submitted less than
14 days after the severance order was entered.
ORDER
Plaintiff’s objections [Dkt. 17] are therefore OVERRULED. 	The findings of fact and
conclusions of law in the report are correct and the report of the magistrate judge [Dkt. 15] is
ADOPTED. A final judgment shall be entered dismissing this lawsuit.
2
____________________________
Michael J. Truncale
United States District Judge
SIGNED this 5th day of March, 2026.
Case 1:23-cv-00099-MJT-ZJH Document 18 Filed 03/05/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>