1

 See Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

RODERICK D. WATSON §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

VS. § NO. 3-05-CV-0914-K

§

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, §

ET AL. §

§

Defendants. §

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case has been referred to the United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b) and a standing order of reference from the district court. The findings and recommendation

of the magistrate judge are as follow:

I.

This is a pro se civil action brought by Plaintiff Roderick D. Watson, a former inmate at FCISeagoville, against the United States of America, Warden Dan Joslin, the Bureau of Prisons, and

unnamed prison employees. On May 5, 2005, plaintiff tendered a complaint to the district clerk and

filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Because the information provided by

plaintiff in his pauper's affidavit indicates that he lacks the funds necessary to prosecute this case,

the court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and allowed the complaint to be filed. A

Spears1

 questionnaire was then sent to plaintiff in order to obtain additional information about the

factual basis of his suit. Plaintiff answered the questionnaire on August 8, 2005. The court now

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00914-K Document 11 Filed 08/17/05 Page 1 of 3 PageID 64
determines that plaintiff should be permitted to prosecute his negligence claim under the Federal

Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") against the United States of America. His claims against the other

defendants should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

II.

Plaintiff alleges that he was assaulted and stabbed by another inmate while incarcerated at

FCI-Seagoville. The gravamen of his complaint is that prison officials were negligent in their

supervision and classification of inmates which led to the assault. As relief, plaintiff seeks $5

million in damages.

A.

A district court may dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it concludes that the

action is frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). An action is frivolous if it lacks an

arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831,

104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989); Henson-El v. Rogers, 923 F.2d 51, 53 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct.

2863 (1991). A complaint is without an arguable basis in law if it is grounded upon an untenable

or discredited legal theory. Neitzke, 109 S.Ct. at 1831. A claim may be deemed to lack an arguable

basis in fact only if it is based upon factual allegations that are clearly fanciful or delusional in

nature. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1733, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992).

B.

Plaintiff alleges that he was assaulted by another inmate as a result of the negligence of

federal prison officials. Such a claim, which sounds in tort, must be brought under the FTCA. 28

U.S.C. § 2679(b)(1); see also Galvin v. Occupational Safety & Health Administration, 860 F.2d 181,

183 (5th Cir. 1988). Only the United States of America is a proper party to such an action. Galvin,

860 F.2d at 183. 

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00914-K Document 11 Filed 08/17/05 Page 2 of 3 PageID 65
RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff should be allowed to prosecute his FTCA claim against the United States of

America. His claims against the other defendants should be summarily dismissed pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner

provided by law. Any party may file written objections to the recommendation within 10 days after

being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). The failure to file

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).

DATED: August 17, 2005.

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00914-K Document 11 Filed 08/17/05 Page 3 of 3 PageID 66