Thomas v. TDCJ et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 2:24-cv-00307 Document65_ Filed 05/11/26 in TXSD Pagelof3
United States District Court

Southem District of Texas
ENTERED
May 11, 2026
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
JEWELL THOMAS, §
§
Plaintiff, §
8
Vv. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00307
§
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL §
JUSTICE, ef al., §
§
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton’s Order and Memorandum and
Recommendation (““M&R”). (D.E. 50). The M&R recommends that the Court should grant in part
and deny in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss, (D.E. 24), as follows:

e Dismiss without prejudice Plaintiffs state law TTCA claims (negligence and gross
negligence) brought against each of the four officer Defendants in their individual
capacities, Defendant Guerrero in his official capacity, and the TDCJ;

e Dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff's request for punitive damages as to his ADA and
RA claims against TDCJ, Defendant Collier in his official capacity, and Defendant
Guerrero in his official capacity;

e Deny Defendants’ motion as unnecessary to the extent Defendants seek to dismiss
Plaintiffs § 1983 claims for monetary relief against either the TDCJ or any
individual defendant in his official capacity;

e Deny Defendants’ motion to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs claims as
barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion;

e Deny Defendants’ motion with regard to Defendants seeking to dismiss on qualified
immunity grounds Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims—
based on their actions in short-cuffing Plaintiff behind his back or allowing him to
be short-cuffed behind his back---against each of the Officer Defendants in their
individual capacities;

e Deny Defendants’ motion as unnecessary to the extent Defendants seek to dismiss
Plaintiff's ADA and RA claims against any or all of the Officer Defendants in their
individual capacities; and

e Deny Defendants’ motion with regard to Defendants secking to dismiss Plaintiffs
failure-to accommodate ADA and RA claims (including his request for
compensatory damages based on intentional discrimination) against the TDCJ,
Defendant Collier in his official capacity, and Defendant Guerrero in his official

1/3

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 2:24-cv-00307 Document65_ Filed 05/11/26 in TXSD Page 2of3

capacity,
(D.E. 50, p. 53-54).

The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate
Judge’s M&R, See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b); General Order No. 2002-13. No
objection has been filed.'! When no timely objection has been filed, the district court need only
determine whether the Magistrate Judge’s M&R is clearly erroneous or contrary to law, United
States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (th Cur. 1989) (per curiam); Powell vy. Lifton Loan
Servicing, L.P., No. 4:14-CV-02700, 2015 WL 3823141, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 18, 2015) (Harmon,
J.) (citation omitted).

Having reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings
of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, and finding that the M&R is not clearly erroneous
or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 50). Accordingly, the Court:

¢ DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiffs state law TTCA claims (negligence
and gross negligence) brought against each of the four Officer Defendants in their
individual capacities, Defendant Guerrero in his official capacity, and the TDCJ;

e DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiffs request for punitive damages as to his
ADA and RA claims against the TDCJ, Defendant Collier in his official capacity,
and Defendant Guerrero in his official capacity;

e DENIES Defendants’ motion as unnecessary to the extent Defendants seek to
dismiss Plaintiffs § 1983 claims for monetary relief against either the TDCJ or
any individual defendant in his official capacity;

e DENIES Defendants’ motion to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's claims
as barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion;

e DENIES Defendants’ motion with regard to Defendants seeking to dismiss on
qualified immunity grounds Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference
claims---based on their actions in short-cuffing Plaintiff behind his back or
allowing him to be short-cuffed behind his back—against each of the Officer
Defendants in their individual capacities;

e DENIES Defendants’ motion as unnecessary to the extent Defendants seek to

' Plaintiff does not object to the M&R. See (D.E. 61, p. 3) (“{T]he Court should adopt the magistrate’s
Recommendation and Memorandum[.]”). Although Judge Hampton pranted Defendants Steve Hampson,
Gabriel Liserio, Iidefonso Barrera, Bryan Collier, Bobby Lumpkin, and Brayan Macias Ramirez’s request
for an extension of time to file objections, (D.E. $2); (D.E. 53), Defendants did not file any objections to
Judge Hampton’s MER,

2/3

Case 2:24-cv-00307 Document65_~ Filed 05/11/26 in TXSD Page 3of3

dismiss Plaintiff's ADA and RA claims against any or all of the Officer Defendants
in their individual capacities; and

e DENIES Defendants’ motion with regard to Defendants seeking to dismiss
Plaintiff's failure-to accommodate ADA and RA claims (including his request for
compensatory damages based on intentional discrimination) against the TDCJ,
Defendant Collier in his official capacity, and Defendant Guerrero in his official
capacity.

SO ORDERED,

DAVIDS. MORALES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas
May //*> 2026

3/3