Taylor v. Doe et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AMARILLO DIVISION
MICKEY RAY TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
v. 2:25-CV-061-Z-BR
JOHN DOE, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation (“FCR”) of the
United States Magistrate Judge to dismiss this case as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1915(e)(2)(B). ECF No. 17. An Objection to the FCR has been filed. ECF No. 18. After
making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, the Court
OVERRULES Plaintiffs Objection and concludes that the FCR of the Magistrate Judge is
correct. ECF No. 17. It is therefore ORDERED that the FCR of the Magistrate Judge is
ADOPTED and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
LEGAL STANDARD
“Within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a
party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations.” FED. R. CIv. P. 72(b)(2). Under the “prison mailbox rule,” a pro se
prisoner’s objections are deemed filed when delivered to prison authorities. See Thompson v.
Rasberry, 993 F.2d 513, 515 (5th Cir. 1993). For timely objections, “[t]he 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(b)(3). However, for objections that are not filed within the
fourteen-day period, the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings and
Case 2:25-cv-00061-Z-BR Document 19 Filed 01/26/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

recommendations only for plain error. Serrano v. Customs & Border Patrol, U.S. Customs &
Border Prot., 975 F.3d 488, 502 (5th Cir. 2020).
ANALYSIS
The Magistrate Judge filed the FCR on December 31, 2025. ECF No. 17. Thus, the
deadline for Plaintiff to file his Objection was January 14, 2026. FED. R. CIv. P. 72(b)(2).
Plaintiff's Objection was filed in ECF on January 14, 2026. ECF No. 18. Because Plaintiffs
Objection was timely, this Court reviews de novo any part of the Magistrate’s disposition
“that has been properly objected to.” FED. R. CIv. P. 72(b)(3) (emphasis added).
First, Plaintiff objects that “it was unreasonable to cite Daniels v. Williams [474 U.S.
327 (1986)] because the proper SCOTUS case would be . . . Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co.[,] 398
U.S. 144 (1970).” ECF No. 18 at 1. Plaintiffs first objection is OVERRULED. The FCR cites
Daniels for the proposition that “[a] plaintiff seeking to recover damages under Section 1983
must establish that a defendant acted under color of state law in violating his rights.” ECF
No. 17 at 3. Daniels unquestionably supports that proposition. See Daniels, 474 U.S. at 331
(“[The] guarantee of due process has been applied to deliberate decisions of government
officials.” (emphasis added and omitted)). The fact that another earlier Supreme Court case
supports the same proposition does not make it “unreasonable” to cite Daniels.
Second, Plaintiff objects that the FCR cited West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) because
the West Court came to a different conclusion on whether the defendant was a state actor.
ECF No. 18 at 1. Plaintiffs second Objection is OVERRULED. The FCR cited West for the
legal proposition that “a defendant acted under color of state law only if... defendant’s
”
actions are ‘fairly attributable to the state.” ECF No. 17 at 3. Again, this proposition is clearly
supported in the case cited. See West, 487 U.S. at 49. While Plaintiff is correct that the West
Court found the defendant/respondent physician’s actions were fairly attributable to the
Case 2:25-cv-00061-Z-BR Document 19 Filed 01/26/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

state, that doesn’t make the case uncitable here for its recitation of the legal standard.
Third, Plaintiff objects to the FCR’s finding that Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient
facts to show that that the Defendants here acted under color of state law. ECF No. 18 at 2—
4. Plaintiffs third Objection is OVERRULED. The FCR found that Securus and its
employees are not state actors simply because they contract with TDCJ, noting that courts
routinely hold the same. ECF No. 17 at 4. Plaintiffs Objection does not specifically challenge
this finding. The FCR is correct. Securus and its employees are not state actors who can be
held liable in a civil rights lawsuit under Section 1983 merely because they contract with
TDCJ. See Aguirre v. Securus Tech., No. 6:24-CV-141, 2024 WL 5151140, at *2 (E.D. Tex.
July 29, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, No. 6:24-CV-141, 2024 WL 5145953
(E.D. Tex. Dec. 17, 2024) (collecting cases).
The Objection does specifically argue that Plaintiff alleged the Defendants are in a
conspiracy with prison guards, meaning their actions were under color of state law. ECF No.
18 at 2-4. However, “allegations of a conspiracy between private and state actors require[]
more than conclusory statements,” to support a Section 1983 claim against the private actors.
Rivera v. Kalafut, 456 F. App’x 325, 327 (5th Cir. 2011) (internal marks omitted). Plaintiffs
allegations of conspiracy are conclusory at best. See ECF No. 1 at 6 (“Lt. Clark and other
officers had conspired with this Securus employee to deny me my property violating due
process.”); ECF No. 1 at 7 (“This is a... conspiracy to deprive and without due process.”);
ECF No. 16 at 2 (“[John Doe] conspire[ed] with prison guards to deprive me of things that I
paid for.”). These conclusory statements are insufficient to support Plaintiffs Section 1983
claims against Securus and its employee.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs Objection and
concludes that the FCR of the Magistrate Judge is correct following de novo review. It is
3
Case 2:25-cv-00061-Z-BR Document 19 Filed 01/26/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

therefore ORDERED that the FCR of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED and this case is
DISMISSED with prejudice.
SO ORDERED. Lng
January a 2026
MATTHEW J. KACSMARYK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-00061-Z-BR Document 19 Filed 01/26/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>