IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER STEVEN LEE, §

No. 02188531, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § 2:22-CV-210-Z-BR

§

BOBBY LUMPKIN, ET AL., §

§

Defendants. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

TO DISMISS § 1983 CLAIMS

Plaintiff, Christopher Steven Lee, filed a complaint (ECF 3) against Defendants, Bobby 

Lumpkin, Joe Tovar, Sergeant Rust, Jennifer Fitch, Officer Bradley, and Officer J. Back. In 

response to the Court’s order to do so, he filed an amended complaint using the proper form. (ECF 

8). As pleaded, the amended complaint failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order 

signed March 31, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to replead to provide sufficient facts concerning 

each named defendant to permit the Court to adequately scrutinize his claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B). The order cautioned that failure to comply might lead to the dismissal of 

Plaintiff’s claims without further notice. (ECF 12). The Court granted Plaintiff an extension of time 

until May 24, 2023, in which to comply with the order to replead. (ECF 14). To date, Plaintiff has 

failed to comply with the order or communicate with the Court in any manner. 

RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons discussed herein, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the United States Magistrate 

Judge to the United States District Judge that the claims of Plaintiff, Christopher Steven Lee, be 

DISMISSED.

Case 2:22-cv-00210-Z-BR Document 15 Filed 06/09/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 82
2 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE

The United States District Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Findings, Conclusion and 

Recommendation to each party by the most efficient means available.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

ENTERED June 9, 2023. 

* NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT *

Any party may object to these proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation. In the event 

parties wish to object, they are hereby NOTIFIED that the deadline for filing objections is fourteen (14) 

days from the date of filing as indicated by the “entered” date directly above the signature line. Service is 

complete upon mailing, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), or transmission by electronic means, Fed. R. Civ. P. 

5(b)(2)(E). Any objections must be filed on or before the fourteenth (14th) day after this 

recommendation is filed as indicated by the “entered” date. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b)(2); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). 

Any such objections shall be made in a written pleading entitled “Objections to the Findings, 

Conclusions and Recommendation.” Objecting parties shall file the written objections with the United 

States District Clerk and serve a copy of such objections on all other parties. A party’s failure to timely file 

written objections shall bar an aggrieved party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal 

the unobjected-to proposed factual findings, legal conclusions, and recommendation set forth by the 

Magistrate Judge and accepted by the district court. See Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 

1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), 

as recognized in ACS Recovery Servs., Inc. v. Griffin, 676 F.3d 512, 521 n.5 (5th Cir. 2012); Rodriguez v. 

Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th Cir. 1988). 

LmuREN~Tu!Y 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:22-cv-00210-Z-BR Document 15 Filed 06/09/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 83