Lewis v. King et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
DARIOUS D. LEWIS, #2401921,
Plaintiff,
v.
DONNA KING, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Case No. 6:25-cv-129-JDK-JDL
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Darious D. Lewis, a prisoner of the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
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 January 22, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending
that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docket No. 32) be granted with respect to
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their official capacities and denied in all other
respects. Docket No. 60. A copy of this Report was sent to Plaintiff, who received it
on February 2, 2026. Docket No. 61. None of the parties filed written objections.
This 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. 	Douglass v. United
Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other
Case 6:25-cv-00129-JDK-JDL Document 65 Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from
ten to fourteen days).
Here, no party objected in the prescribed period. The Court therefore reviews
the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews his
legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. 	See United States
v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989)
(holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard
of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”).
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. 60) as the findings of this Court.
Defendants’ motion (Docket No. 32) is GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiff’s claims
against Defendants in their official capacities are dismissed. 	In all other respects,
Defendants’ motion (Docket No. 32) is DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of
___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
27th	February, 2026.
Case 6:25-cv-00129-JDK-JDL Document 65 Filed 02/27/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>