McGee v. T.D.C.J. Director et al

- 1 -
No. 6:24-cv-00313
Rickey L. McGee,
Plaintiff,
v.
Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, et al.,
Defendants.
O R D E R
Plaintiff, a prisoner confined within the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice (TDCJ) proceeding pro se and in forma pau-
peris, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Doc. 1. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Doc. 21. The case
was referred to a magistrate judge, who issued a report recom-
mending that defendants’ motion be granted in part and denied in
part. Doc. 24 at 29.
Specifically, the report recommended that plaintiff’s official
capacity claims for monetary damages and declaratory and pro-
spective injunctive relief should be dismissed without prejudice
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Id. Further, the
report recommended that the following individual capacity claims
should be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted:
• Supervisory liability claims against defendants Lumpkin,
Marshall, and Mitchell;
• Policymaker liability claims against defendant Lumpkin;
• Failure to protect claims against defendants Lumpkin,
Mitchell, Marshall, and Smith; and
• All claims against all defendants for intentional infliction
of emotional distress and violations of the Fifth or Four-
teenth Amendment. Id. at 29–30.
Case 6:24-cv-00313-JCB-JDL Document 26 Filed 01/13/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 2 -
The report continued that the following claims should remain
pending on the docket:
• Excessive use of force claims against defendants Brannan
and Foust;
• Bystander liability claims against defendant Ruthledge;
• Failure to protect claims against defendant Foust;
• Unreasonable strip search claims under the Fourth
Amendment against defendants Brannan and Foust;
• Medical deliberate indifference claims against defendants
Brannan, Foust, Lakin, Ruthledge, Abdallah, Smith, and
Mitchell;
• Unconstitutional conditions of confinement claims against
defendants Ruthledge and Brannan; and
• First Amendment retaliation claims against defendants
Lumpkin, Brannan, and Foust. Id. at 30.
Plaintiff received a copy of the report. Doc. 25. Neither party
filed written objections. When there have been no timely objec-
tions to a report, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is
no clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b),
advisory committee’s notes to 1983 amendment.
Having reviewed the record and being satisfied that there is no
clear error, the court accepts the report’s findings and recommen-
dations. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 21) is granted in
part and denied in part, consistent with the magistrate judge’s rec-
ommendations outlined above.
So ordered by the court on January 13, 2026.
J. CAM PB EL L BA RK ER
United States District Judge
Case 6:24-cv-00313-JCB-JDL Document 26 Filed 01/13/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>