Bennett v. Abebe et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
ABILENE DIVISION
KEVIN DEAN BENNETT,
Instirutional ID No. 02355208
Plaintiff,
No. l:24-CV-00093-H
ERMIAS Z. ABEBE, et al.,
Dcfendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATE S MAG ISTRATE E
The United States Magistrate Judge made thorough findings, conclusions, and a
recommendation (FCR) that this Court dismiss without prejudice all of Plaintiffs claims.
Dkt. No. 29. Plaintifffrled brief objections. Dkt. No. 30.
"The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's
disposition that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72@)(3); see 28 U S C'
0 636@X1). In conffast, the district judge reviews any unobjected+o findings, conclusions,
and recommendations for plain error. The Court has examined the record and reviewed the
unobjected-to portions ofthe FCR for plain error and, finding none, expressly accepts and
adopts those portions of the Magistrate Judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendation,
with one modification-as explained below, the Coun declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state-law claims, if any, and dismisses those claims without
prejudice. But the Court dismisses Ptaintiffs federal claims with prejudice'
Additionally, in light of Plaintiffs objections to the FCR, the Court has conducted a
de novo review ofthe relevant portions ofthe FCR and the record in this case. Plaintiffs
Case 1:24-cv-00093-H Document 32 Filed 01/30/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

objections consist of restatements of the claims and alSuments made in his complaint and
questionnahe responses, arguments thoroughly addressed by the FCR, mere disagleements
with the Magistrate Judge's wording, or conclusory statements insisting that his claims have
merit. The Court finds that the objections do not warant revisiting, modifuing, or rejecting
the FCR. Plaintiff disagrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusions, but he does not refute
the factual or legal bases for his recommendation. Plaintiffhas not shown that the
Magistrate Judge erred in recommending dismissal of these ciaims. Thus, the objections are
overruled, and the Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendation
of the United States Magisrrate Judge.
Finally, to the extent Plaintif s complaint may be liberally construed to allege any
statelaw claims of negligence or malpractice, the Magistrate Judge explained that Plaintiffs
,,pleadings ultimately reveal that his complaint sounds in malpractice rather than deliberate
indifference" and thus "further leave to amend would not produce plausible allegations of
deliberate indiffetence." Dkt. No. 29 at77. The undersigned agrees that Plaintiff alleges, at
most, a violation of state tort law negligence or medical malpractice. But 42 U.S.C. $ 1983
is not a general tort starute, and the facts alleged will not support a federal civil-rights action
See Daniel v. Witliams,474U.S.327,33l-34 (1986). Thus, the Court clarifies that Plaintiffs
state-law claims, if any, should be dismissed without prejudice.
with respect to supplemental jurisdiction, "a federal court has subject-matter
jurisdiction over specified state-law claims, which it may (or may not) choose to exercise."
Carkbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, \nc.,556 U.S. 635' 639 (2009) (citing 28 U'S'C $ 1367)' "A
district court's decision whether to exercise that jurisdiction after dismissing every claim
2
Case 1:24-cv-00093-H Document 32 Filed 01/30/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

over which it had original jurisdiction is purely discretionary." 1d (citing 28 U.S.C.
01367(c)).
Under 28 U.S.C. $ 1367(cX3), the "district courts may decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if . . . (3) the district court has
dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." The general rule in this circuit
,,is that a court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when
all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial." Brookshire Bros. Holding, Inc. v. Dayco Prod.
Inc.,554F.3d 595, 602 (sth Cir. 2009). In deciding whether to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction, the courts must balance the factors of "judicial economy, convenience, faimess,
and comiry.,, camegie-Mellon {.Jniv. v. cohill,484 u.s. 343, 350-51 (1988). In this case, the
Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction and declines to exercise
jurisdiction over plaintiffs pendent state law clatms. see Bradley v. sheiffs Dep't st. Landry
par.,958 F.3d 387, 396 (sth Cir. 2020). Thus, the court dismisses Plaintiffs state-law
claims without prejudice to his right to raise them in state court.r
The Court therefore orders:
L Plaintiffs complaint and his claims under Secfion 1983 are dismissed with
prejudice for failure to stare a claim under 28 U.S.C. $0 1915(e)(2XB) and 1915A(b). To the
extent Plaintiffraises any state-law claims, they are dismissed without prejudice for lack of
jurisdiction.
2. Dismissal of this action does not release Plaintiffor the institution where he is
incarcerated from the obligation to pay any filing fee previously imposed. see williams v.
Roberts, 116 F .3d 1126, 1 128 (5th Cir. 1997).
I The Coun expresses no opinion on the potential merit of his statc-law claims
3
Case 1:24-cv-00093-H Document 32 Filed 01/30/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

3. This dismissal will count as a qualifuing dismissal, or "strike," under
28 U.S.C. $ l9l5 and Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385 (5th Cir. 1996). See Lomax t
Or-tiz-Marquez,590 U.S.-, 140 S. Ct. 1721 (2020). Plaintiffis cautioned that if he
accumulates three sEikes, he may not pro ceed in fotma paupeis in any civil action oI appeal
filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is in imminent danger of
serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. $ 1915(g).
4. All reliefnot expressly Sranted is denied, and any pending motions are
denied.
5. Plaintiffis advised that if he appeals this order, he will be requted to pay the
appeal fee of $605.00 pursuant to the PLRA, and he must submit an application to proceed
in fotma paupeis and a 6-month certificate of inmate trust account at the same time he files
his notice of appeal.
The Court will enter judgment accordingly.
So ordered.
Dated January?,2026.
JAM WESLEY TIENDRIX
U States Disrrict Judge
4
Case 1:24-cv-00093-H Document 32 Filed 01/30/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>