Lindsay v. Russell et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
BRIAN KEITH LINDSAY,
Plaintiff,
v.
JUDGE KERRY RUSSELL, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Case No. 6:25-cv-124-JDK-KNM
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. 	Plaintiff consented to receive electronic notice.
Docket No. 8. 	On December 16, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation, recommending that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docket No. 28)
be granted and that the claims against Defendants Bradam and Cortez be dismissed
with prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). Docket No. 30. No written objections have been filed.
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
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superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to
Case 6:25-cv-00124-JDK-KNM Document 32 Filed 01/11/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
file objections from ten to fourteen days).
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. 916 (1989)
(holding that the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and
contrary to law” if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed).
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, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (Docket No. 30) is ADOPTED. The motion to dismiss (Docket No.
28) is GRANTED and the claims against Defendants Bradam and Cortez are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of
___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11th	January, 2026.
Case 6:25-cv-00124-JDK-KNM Document 32 Filed 01/11/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>