Johnson v. Parrish

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
COREY JOHNSON, #127345,
Plaintiff,
v.
JASON LEE PARRISH,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Case No. 6:26-cv-229-JDK-KNM
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Corey Johnson, a prisoner confined within the Texas prison system
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this lawsuit against Defendant
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations
for disposition of the action.
On August 14, 2026, Judge Mitchell issued a Report recommending that
Plaintiff ’s case be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. Docket No. 10. Judge Mitchell further
recommended that Plaintiff be cautioned that filing additional claims similar or
identical to those the Court has found to be legally unfounded may subject him to
sanctions. Id. at 7.
A copy of the Report was sent to Plaintiff on August 14, 2026. However,
Plaintiff did not file objections.
Case 6:26-cv-00229-JDK-KNM Document 11 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
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.
Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Servs., LLC, 875 F.3d 243, 249 (5th Cir. 2017).
Here, Plaintiff did not file any objections. 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) (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. 10) as the findings of this Court. It is
therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Any motions pending in this case are DENIED as moot.
Finally, Plaintiff is cautioned that continuing to file lawsuits based on claims
materially similar to those the Court has already rejected will be construed as abusive
litigation and will subject him to sanctions sufficient “to deter repetition of the
conduct,” including monetary sanctions or other limitations on his ability to file in
this Court. FED. R. CIV. P. 11(c)(4).
Case 6:26-cv-00229-JDK-KNM Document 11 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of
___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13th	October, 2026.
Case 6:26-cv-00229-JDK-KNM Document 11 Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>