Panus et al v. Collier et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
ABILENE DIVISION
JUSTIN PANUS,
Institutional ID No. 02167693
Plaintiff,
v. No. 1:23-CV-00086-H-BU
BRYAN COLLIER, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge made thorough findings, conclusions, and
recommendations (FCR) that this Court deny Plaintiff's request for preliminary injunctive
relief, Dkt. No. 29,* and dismiss all of Plaintiff's claims without prejudice for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 30. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge found that because
Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege an ongoing violation of his Eighth Amendment rights, his
complaint cannot proceed under the Ex Parte Young’ exception, and the Eleventh
Amendment bars his claims. Plaintiff filed objections. Dkt. No. 32.
“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s
disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see 28 U.S.C.
'Patrick O’Daniel has been listed as the lead defendant in the caption of this case. Because Patrick
O’Daniel and the other former members of the Texas Board of Criminal Justice were terminated
from the case and the new office holders were substituted as defendants, Dkt. No. 30, the Court
directs the Clerk to change the caption of this case to reflect that Bryan Collier is the lead defendant.
Based on the Magistrate Judge’s report, Plaintiffs request for preliminary injunctive relief was
refiled as a motion at Dkt. No. 31.
3209 U.S. 123 (1908).
Case 1:23-cv-00086-H-BU Document 33 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

§ 636(b)(1). In contrast, the district judge reviews any unobjected-to findings, conclusions,
and recommendations for plain error. The Court has examined the record and reviewed the
unobjected-to portions of the FCR for plain error and, finding none, expressly accepts and
adopts those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation.
Additionally, in light of Plaintiff's specific objections, the Court has conducted a de
novo review of the relevant portions of the FCR and the record in this case. Many of
Plaintiff's objections consist of restatements of arguments made in his complaint (as
supplemented by his responses to the Magistrate Judge’s questionnaire), arguments
thoroughly addressed by the FCR, mere disagreements with the Magistrate Judge’s
wording, or conclusory statements insisting that his claims have merit. The Court finds that
the objections do not warrant revisiting, modifying, or rejecting the FCR.
Thus, the objections are overruled, and the Court accepts and adopts the findings,
conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. As a result,
Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction, Dkt. No. 31, is denied, and Plaintiff's
complaint and all claims asserted within it are dismissed without prejudice for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction.
All relief not expressly granted is denied, and any other pending motions are denied.
The Court will enter judgment accordingly.
So ordered.
Dated January!UZ, 2026. Cur.
JAMES WESLEY HENDRIX
Unjfed States District Judge
Case 1:23-cv-00086-H-BU Document 33 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>