Morgan v Captain Lakin, et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
BRODERICK MORGAN, #1586318, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	Case No. 6:25-cv-119-JDK-KNM
§
CAPT. DANIEL LAKIN, et al., 	§
§
Defendants. 	§
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, a prisoner of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed this
civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 about alleged violations of his
constitutional rights in prison. 	The case was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations
for the disposition of the case.
Judge Mitchell has authorized Plaintiff to serve many of the dozens of
Defendants against whom Plaintiff has brought claims. 	Docket Nos. 13, 24. 	On
January 6, 2026, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Report and Recommendation that
several other Defendants—Holman, Neal, Mica Lakin, Love, and Unknown Nurse—
be dismissed as defendants to this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) due to
Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim against them. Docket No. 26. A copy of this Report
was mailed to Plaintiff, who filed written objections. Docket No. 34.
This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de
novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of the Report and Recommendation.
Case 6:25-cv-00119-JDK-KNM Document 35 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
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 Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other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).
A party objecting to a Magistrate Judge’s Report must specifically identify
those findings to which he objects. Frivolous, conclusory, or general objections need
not be considered by the District Judge. See Nettles v. Wainright, 677 F.2d 404, 410
& n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc). Furthermore, objections that simply rehash or mirror
the underlying claims addressed in the Report are not sufficient to entitle the party
to de novo review. See U.S. v. Morales, 947 F.Supp.2d 166, 171 (D.P.R. 2013) (“Even
though timely objections to a report and recommendation entitle the objecting party
to de novo review of the findings, ‘the district court should be spared the chore of
traversing ground already plowed by the Magistrate.’”) (internal citations omitted);
see also Vega v. Artuz, 2002 WL 31174466 *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2002) (unpublished)
(“However, objections that are merely perfunctory responses argued in an attempt to
engage the district court in a rehashing of the same arguments set forth in the
original petition will not suffice to invoke de novo review of the magistrate judge’s
recommendations.”).
Judge Mitchell recommended dismissal of the Defendants in question because,
as a matter of clearly established law in this Circuit, Defendant Holman was not
acting under color of state law as required to state a claim under Section 1983, and
Case 6:25-cv-00119-JDK-KNM Document 35 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
the facts alleged about the other Defendants also fail to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. Docket No. 26 at 7–8. Plaintiff’s objections rehash his claims
against these Defendants, but he fails to identify any error in the Report. See Docket
No. 34.
The Court has conducted a careful de novo review of the record and the
Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings and recommendations. 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
such de novo review, the Court has determined that the Report of the United States
Magistrate Judge is correct, and Plaintiff’s objections are without merit.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 26) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the
Court. 	Plaintiff’s objections (Docket No. 34) are OVERRULED. 	Further, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Holman, Neal, Mica Lakin,
Love, and Unknown Nurse are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of
___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11th	February, 2026.
Case 6:25-cv-00119-JDK-KNM Document 35 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>