United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Texarkana Division
W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Maldonado, proceeding pro se, filed this civil
rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaining of
alleged violations of his constitutional rights. This Court
referred the case to a United States Magistrate Judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3) and the
Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the
Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges. The
named Defendants include: Former TDCJ-CID Sergeant Jerry
Brock, Warden Joseph Wilson, Nurse Steven Roberts, Nurse
Jamie Martin, Officer Tina Gooden, Captain Frederick Gooden,
an unknown staff member at the University of Texas Medical
Branch Hospital in Galveston and unknown medical staff
members at the Beto Unit of TDCJ-CID. This Order adopts two
Reports of the Magistrate Judge: first, a report that
recommends granting Nurse Roberts and Nurse Martin’s
motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 50) and second, a
report that recommends granting Warden Wilson, Captain
Frederick Gooden and Officer Tina Gooden’s motion to
dismiss (Docket No. 49). The latter also recommends
dismissing the claims against the unknown defendants, which
is similarly adopted here.
incarcerated, Mr. Maldonado suffered multiple facial
fractures and required surgical correction with plates. He
contends Former Sgt. Brock caused those fractures by
assaulting him using excessive force.
Mr. Maldonado makes several claims about a disciplinary
and a use of force investigation related to his injuries.
First, he claims the disciplinary case, filed by Former Sgt.
Brock, was only used to justify Sgt. Brock’s excessive
force. Second, he claims Captain Gooden processed the
disciplinary case without Mr. Maldonado’s presence,
falsely claiming Mr. Maldonado was not on the unit. Third,
Mr. Maldonado states Captain Gooden is married to Officer
Tina Gooden, whom Plaintiff wrote up for not following proper
procedures after a use of force. Fourth, Mr. Maldonado claims
Warden Wilson improperly signed a grievance stating proper
procedures were followed in the use of force investigation
and the disciplinary case.
Plaintiff asserts claims against multiple medical
professionals. First, he claims Nurse Roberts and Nurse
Martin failed to properly diagnose his injury, resulting in
pain and suffering. In part, Mr. Maldonado claims he did not
receive adequate pain medication for three days after his
injury. Second, he claims an unknown staff member at a
hospital in Galveston failed to provide him with pain
medication for “6, 8, and even 12 hours after
surgery.” Third, he claims the medical staff at the
Beto Unit failed to provide him with pain medication while in
The Reports of the Magistrate Judge
named Defendants were ordered to answer the lawsuit. In
response, Warden Wilson, Captain Gooden and Officer Tina
Gooden filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). Likewise, Nurse Roberts and Nurse Martin
filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and a motion
for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies. Mr. Maldonado did not respond.
review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
recommending the nurses’ motion for summary judgment
based upon exhaustion of administrative remedies be granted.
Docket No. 50. The Magistrate Judge also issued a separate
Report recommending the motion to dismiss filed by Warden
Wilson, Captain Gooden and Officer Gooden be granted. Docket
No. 49. The latter Report also recommended dismissal of the
unknown staff member at the hospital in Galveston and the
unknown medical staff members at the Beto Unit under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.
Maldonado received a copy of the Magistrate Judge’s
Report but filed no objections thereto; accordingly, he is
not entitled to de novo review by the District Judge
of those findings, conclusions and recommendations, and
except upon grounds of plain error, he is barred from
appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and
legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Douglass v. United Servs.
Auto. Assoc., 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en
the Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the
Report of the Magistrate Judge and agrees with the Report of
the Magistrate Judge. See United States v. Raddatz,
447 U.S. 667, 683 (1980) (“[T]he statute permits the
district court to give to the magistrate’s proposed
findings of fact and recommendations ‘such weight as
[their] merit commands and the sound discretion of the judge
warrants, . . . .’”) (quoting Mathews v.
Weber, 23 U.S. 261, 275 (1976)). It is therefore
the Reports of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No.’s 49
and 50) are ADOPTED as the opinion of the
District Court. It is further
the motion for summary judgment filed by the Defendants Nurse
Roberts and Nurse Martin (Docket No. 40) is
GRANTED and the claims against these
Defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. These
Defendants are DISMISSED as parties to the
lawsuit. It is further
the motion to dismiss filed by the Defendants Nurse Roberts
and Nurse Martin (Docket No. 39) ...