IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

BRAYLON RAY COULTER, §

#10804686, §

PLAINTIFF, §

§

V. § CIVIL CASE NO. 3:22-CV-1655-N-BK

§

MAJOR BEAMER, §

DEFENDANT. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, this action was referred to the 

United States magistrate judge for case management, including the issuance of findings and a 

recommended disposition where appropriate. Upon review of the relevant pleadings and 

applicable law, this case should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot. 

On July 29, 2022, Plaintiff Braylon Ray Coulter, a federal pretrial detainee at the 

Limestone County Jail, filed an amended complaint against Major Beamer for denial of access to 

electronic discovery (e-discovery) following his recent transfer from the Johnson County Jail to 

the Limestone County Jail. Doc. 3 at 1-2. Coulter, who is proceeding pro se in his criminal 

case pending in this Court, alleges that at the Johnson County Jail, he had access to e-discovery 

eight hours per week, but only had access “1 hour/1 day a week” at the Limestone County Jail.

Doc. 3 at 1-2. Coulter requests that he be afforded “reasonable time to review electronic 

discovery.” Doc. 3 at 3. 

Case 3:22-cv-01655-N-BK Document 4 Filed 08/11/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 9
2

Coulter’s subsequent transfer back to the Johnson County Jail, renders his claim for 

injunctive relief moot.1See Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir. 2001) (holding 

prisoner’s transfer renders moot claim for declaratory and injunctive relief). Moreover, “any 

suggestion of relief based on the possibility of transfer back to” the Limestone County Jail “is 

too speculative to warrant relief.” Id. Consequently, this case should be DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot.

2

SO RECOMMENDED on August 11, 2022.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the manner provided by 

law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and recommendation must file specific 

written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED.

R. CIV. P. 72(b). An objection must identify the finding or recommendation to which objection is 

made, the basis for the objection, and the place in the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by 

reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific 

written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal 

conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon 

grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 

(5th Cir. 1996), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time 

to file objections to 14 days). 

1 The U.S. Marshal Service custody report confirms that Coulter was transferred back to the 

Johnson County Jail on August 3, 2022.

 

2 Although Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, it is 

more efficient to dismiss the complaint as moot than to require compliance with the Court’s 

filing fee requirements. 

Case 3:22-cv-01655-N-BK Document 4 Filed 08/11/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 10