Bacot v. Crawford et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
ROBERT BACOT, #02493790,
Plaintiff,
v.
SGT. DEBORAH CRAWFORD, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Case No. 6:24-cv-61-JDK-KNM
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Robert Bacot, a prisoner confined within the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice (TDCJ) proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil
rights lawsuit complaining of alleged violations of his constitutional rights while
incarcerated in the Cherokee County Jail. The case was referred to the United States
Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
recommendations for the disposition of the case.
Judge Mitchell issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 12)
recommending that Plaintiff’s lawsuit be dismissed, with prejudice, for the failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). A copy
of this Report was sent to Plaintiff with an acknowledgment card; the docket reflects
that Plaintiff received a copy of the Report. Docket No. 13. However, to date, Plaintiff
neither filed objections nor otherwise responded to the Report.
This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de
novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and
Case 6:24-cv-00061-JDK-KNM Document 14 Filed 02/24/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Recommendation. 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superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to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).
Here, Plaintiff did not object in the prescribed period. The Court therefore
reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and
reviews the legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See
United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S.
918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the
standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”).
Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case,
the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to
law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the
United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 12) as the findings of this Court.
Accordingly, it ORDERED that Plaintiff’s lawsuit is DISMISSED, with prejudice,
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Any and all motions which may be pending in this
case are DENIED as moot.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of
___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
24th	February, 2026.
Case 6:24-cv-00061-JDK-KNM Document 14 Filed 02/24/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>