Dixon v. Varren

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER DIXON, #2313690,
Plaintiff,
v.
SGT. FNU VARING,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Case No. 6:25-cv-446-JDK-KNM
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Christopher Dixon, an inmate of the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights lawsuit alleging
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.
On January 5, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that
the case be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A, and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). Docket No. 7.
A copy of this Report was sent to Plaintiff, who did not file written objections.
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.
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 Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other
Case 6:25-cv-00446-JDK-KNM Document 9 Filed 02/16/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
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 her 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. 7) as the findings of this Court. It
is therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice for as frivolous
and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Any motions
pending in this case are DENIED as moot.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of
___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16th	February, 2026.
Case 6:25-cv-00446-JDK-KNM Document 9 Filed 02/16/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>