Wolfford v. 349th District Court of Houston, County, Texas et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 	EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
NICKOLAS WOLFFORD, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
versus 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23-CV-43
§
PAM FLETCHER, et al., 	§
§
Defendants. 	§
MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Nickolas Wolfford, an inmate confined within the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled civil rights
lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against District Judge Pam Fletcher, District Attorney
Donna Kasper, Court Coordinator Tina Teage, David Cervantes, District Clerk Coralyn Rains,
Assistant District Clerk Jennifer Blevins, County Judge Ronnie Jorden, Jail Administrator Jerry
Baker, and DEA Agent Michael McCraight. 	The court previously referred this matter to the
Honorable Christine L. Stetson, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for
consideration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and orders of this court. 	The magistrate judge has
submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge recommending the
case be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
The court has received the Report and Recommendation, along with the record, pleadings,
and all available evidence. 	Plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation. The court must therefore conduct a de novo review of the objections in relation
to the pleadings and the applicable law.
The magistrate judge concluded that the claims against Defendants Fletcher, Kasper,
Teage, Cervantes, Rains, Blevins, Baker and McCraight were barred by the applicable statute of
limitations. Plaintiff contends this conclusion is incorrect because his case is brought pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1985, rather than Section 1983 as stated by the magistrate judge. This assertion does
Case 9:23-cv-00043-MAC-CLS Document 69 Filed 02/17/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

not benefit plaintiff because the applicable period of limitations for lawsuits brought in Texas
pursuant to both Section 1983 and Section 1985 is two years. Helton v. Clements, 832 F.2d 332,
334 (5th Cir. 1987).
Plaintiff also states he should be entitled to the four year period of limitations set forth in
28 U.S.C. § 1658. The residual federal limitations period set forth in Section 1658 applies only
to statutes enacted since 1990. 	Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons, 541 U.S. 369, 382 (2004).
Section 1658 does not apply to suits brought pursuant to Sections 1983 and 1985. Walker v. Epps,
550 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2008).
Finally, plaintiff asserts actions were taken by defendants Rains and Blevins within the
applicable of period of limitations. While plaintiff alleges he sent documents to defendant Rains
and Blevins in 2023, his allegations fail to show the documents were received and that defendants
Rains and Blevins took any action with respect to them.
ORDER
Accordingly, the objections filed by plaintiff in this matter (#67) are OVERRULED. The
findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the report of the magistrate judge (#64) are
correct, and the report of the magistrate judge is ADOPTED. A final judgment shall be entered
in accordance with the recommendation of the magistrate judge.
2
________________________________________
MARCIA A. CRONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 17th day of February, 2026.
Case 9:23-cv-00043-MAC-CLS Document 69 Filed 02/17/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>