Moreno v. Lilly et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
ROBERT MORENO,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN LILLY, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Case No. 6:25-cv-175-JDK-JDL
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Robert Moreno Jr., an inmate of the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice - Correctional Institutions Division proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit
complaining of alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. 	Docket No. 1. 	The
case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636. 	The named Defendants are Warden Lilly of the Michael Unit and
Sgt. Burch and Lt. Segui from the Estelle Unit.
I.
On May 22, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that
Plaintiff’s claims against Warden Lilly be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. 	D o c k e t N o . 4 . 	The other two Defendants named by
Plaintiff are officers at the Estelle Unit, and the actions complained of occurred there.
The Estelle Unit is in Walker County, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. 	The Magistrate Judge therefore
recommended that the claims against Sgt. Burch and Lt. Segui be transferred to the
Southern District of Texas. Id. at 5. On June 11, 2025, Plaintiff filed an objection to
Case 4:25-cv-05769 Document 7 Filed on 11/21/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2
the Magistrate Judge’s Report. Docket No. 6.
II.
Where a party timely objects to the Report and Recommendation, the Court
reviews the objected-to findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo.
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 Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by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).
III.
In his objections, Plaintiff states that “Warden Lilly and her administration
located at the Michael Unit were well aware of the historical record in the infirmary.
Approval of said medical pass demonstrating no handcuffs to my arms. Not to mention,
the record includes indemnification process. Ms. Lilly is legally responsible for the safety
and welfare of assignment. Please see sec. 1983.” Docket No. 6 at 1.
Plaintiff offers nothing to suggest that the Warden of the Michael Unit affirmatively
participated in an incident occurring at the Estelle Unit, nor does he identify any
allegedly 	unconstitutional 	customs 	or 	policies 	resulting 	in 	a 	constitutional 	injury.
See Spiller v. City of Texas City, Texas Police Dep’t, 130 F.3d 162, 167 (5th Cir. 1997) (in
order 	to 	satisfy 	the 	cause 	in 	fact 	requirement, 	the plaintiff must allege that
the custom or policy served as the moving force behind the constitutional violation at
issue 	or 	that 	his injuries resulted from 	the 	execution 	of 	the policy or custom; 	the
description 	of 	the policy or custom and 	its 	relationship 	to 	the
Case 4:25-cv-05769 Document 7 Filed on 11/21/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

underlying constitutional violation cannot be conclusory, but must contain specific
facts). Although Plaintiff says that the Warden is legally responsible for the safety and
welfare of an assignment, the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that this is a claim
of liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior, or supervisory liability, which is
not generally applicable in § 1983 cases. Alderson v. Concordia Parish Correctional
Facility, 848 F.3d 415, 419 (5th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections concerning
Warden Lilly are without merit.
Plaintiff next states that Sgt. Burch and Lt. Segui intentionally disregarded his
medical provisions. Docket No. 6 at 2. He says that regardless of the transport
circumstances, the underlying Fifth and Eighth Amendment violation, including equal
protection and cruel and unusual punishment, “is an act causing a
constitutional deprivation resulting in a constitutional injury.” Id. He cites his Step
One and Step Two grievances and says that he has made a viable statement of a
genuine issue of fact. Id. Plaintiff does not address the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation that these claims be transferred to the Southern District of Texas.
The Court offers no opinion as to the merits of Plaintiff’s claim, which he may
litigate in the court of proper venue. His objections present no basis upon which to
reject the Magistrate Judge’s Report.
IV.
The Court has conducted a careful de novo review of those portions of the
Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings and recommendations to which the Plaintiff
objected. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (District Judge shall “make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.”) Upon de novo review, the Court has
determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct, and the Plaintiff’s
objections are without merit. It is accordingly
3
Case 4:25-cv-05769 Document 7 Filed on 11/21/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s objections are overruled and the Report of
the Magistrate Judge (Docket no. 4) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District
Court. It is further
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Warden Lilly are
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. Warden Lilly is dismissed as a party to this lawsuit. It is
further
ORDERED that the remaining claims in the lawsuit, including Plaintiff’s
claims against Sgt. Burch and Lt. Segui, are TRANSFERRED, forthwith and
without delay, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division, for such other and further proceedings which that court
may deem appropriate. All motions not previously ruled upon are DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of
___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21st	November, 2025.
Case 4:25-cv-05769 Document 7 Filed on 11/21/25 in TXSD Page 4 of 4