Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-09-40756/USCOURTS-ca5-09-40756-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-40756

Summary Calendar

DREAGLEN SYLVESTER DAVIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

TEXAS BOARD OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF

CRIMINAL JUSTICE; BRAD LIVINGSTON,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:08-CV-237

Before KING, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dreaglen Sylvester Davis, Texas prisoner # 1271774, appeals the district

court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint wherein Davis complained

that he was forced to work without compensation, he was subject to illegal strip

searches, and his property was illegally confiscated. The district court dismissed

Davis’s claim that he was forced to work without compensation and granted

summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Davis argues that he timely filed

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 8, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 09-40756 Document: 00511074550 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2010
No. 09-40756

 The events in question took place prior to the amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 636 which 1

changed the relevant time period to fourteen days effective December 1, 2009.

2

objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. He contends

that the district court failed to conduct a de novo review because it improperly

found that objections were not timely filed.

Because Davis forwarded his written objections to prison officials within

ten days of receiving the magistrate judge’s report, the objections were timely 1

filed. See Thompson v. Rasberry, 993 F.2d 513, 515 (5th Cir. 1993).

Consequently, Davis should have been afforded de novo review by the district

court, and our review on appeal is de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C);

Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en

banc). 

The district court denied Davis’s FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e) motion wherein

Davis complained that the court failed to address his objections to the

magistrate judge’s report. In denying the motion, the court found that Davis

failed to show the dismissal of his suit was erroneous and also denied all

outstanding motions. The district court’s denial of the Rule 59(e) motion

indicates that a de novo review was conducted. Thus, any error in failing to

consider Davis’s objections is harmless. See Smith v. Collins, 964 F.2d 483, 485

(5th Cir. 1992).

Davis does not renew any of the substantive claims raised in the district

court. By failing to brief any argument challenging the district court’s reasons

for dismissal, Davis has abandoned the only grounds for appeal. See Yohey v.

Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas County

Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 09-40756 Document: 00511074550 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2010