Langston v. Harris et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER LANGSTON,
#2388668,
Plaintiff,
v.
FNU HARRIS, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Case No. 6:25-cv-422-JDK-JDL
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Christopher Langston, a prisoner incarcerated within the Coffield
Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
violations of his constitutional rights while imprisoned. The case was referred to
United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love for findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and recommendations for the disposition of the case.
On December 5, 2025, Judge Love issued a Report (Docket No. 10)
recommending that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Harris (grievance
inspector) and Unknown First-Shift Lieutenant 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). Judge Love further recommended that Plaintiff’s force allegations
against Defendant Odo B. should remain pending. A copy of this Report was mailed
to the parties, and the docket reflects that Plaintiff received a copy on December 15,
Case 6:25-cv-00422-JDK-JDL Document 14 Filed 02/05/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
2025. Docket No. 11. Neither party filed objections nor otherwise responded to the
Report, and the time for doing so has passed.
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superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to
file objections from ten to fourteen days).
Here, no objections were filed. 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 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, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of
the United States Magistrate Judge. Docket No. 10. Plaintiff’s claims against
Defendants Harris and Unknown First-Shift Lieutenant are DISMISSED, with
prejudice, under 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b)(1). Plaintiff claims against Defendant Odo B.
shall remain pending.
Case 6:25-cv-00422-JDK-JDL Document 14 Filed 02/05/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of
___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5th	February, 2026.
Case 6:25-cv-00422-JDK-JDL Document 14 Filed 02/05/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>