IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

ESAW LAMPKIN, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Case No. 6:23-cv-108-JDK-JDL

§

CHIEF P.D. OFFICER JASON PERRINI,§

et al. §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Esaw Lampkin, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while he was an inmate in the Henderson County Jail. 

After the Court observed that Plaintiff is barred pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 

from proceeding in forma pauperis (see Docket No. 8), Plaintiff paid the full filing

fee. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love for 

findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the 

case. 

On October 17, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that 

the case be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) on the 

basis that it is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and thus fails to 

state a claim for which relief can be granted. Docket No. 35. A copy of this Report 

was sent to Plaintiff at his last known address, but it was returned 

stamped “UNCLAIMED/UNABLE TO FORWARD.” Docket No. 36. Plaintiff has 

not filed written objections or notified the Court of any change of address. 

1

Case 6:23-cv-00108-JDK-JDL Document 37 Filed 11/29/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 176
This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de 

novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of the Report and Recommendation. 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire 

record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United 

Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other 

grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from 

ten to fourteen days). 

Here, Plaintiff did not object in the prescribed period. The Court therefore 

reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and 

reviews the legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See

United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 

918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the 

standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”). 

Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case, 

the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to 

law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the 

United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 35) as the findings of this Court. This 

case is DISMISSED without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to refile his claims if and 

when he succeeds in overturning his criminal conviction through state remedies or 

federal habeas proceedings. All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. 

2

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 29th November, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00108-JDK-JDL Document 37 Filed 11/29/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 177