IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

BRANDON JAMES ANGEL-CROWELL §

#02157883

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23cv048

TDCJ MARK W. MICHAEL’S UNIT, et al. §

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRTE JUDGE

Plaintiff Brandon James Angel-Crowell, an inmate of the Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice (TDCJ), pro se, filed this complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 complaining of alleged 

violations of his constitutional rights in the TDCJ’s Michael Unit. The lawsuit was transferred to 

this Court for proper venue and referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for 

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

Plaintiff sues several TDCJ employees, alleging they took no action on his reports that he 

was being sexually assaulted by at least one fellow inmate, allowing the rapes and torture to 

continue for months. (Dkt. #8 at 4, 9.) On April 10, 2023, the Court gave certain Defendants until 

May 8, 2023, to respond to the Plaintiff’s complaint. (Dkt. #30.) The answer is thus not yet due, 

and no discovery or other litigation of this case has occurred at this early stage.

On March 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed two documents titled motions for summary judgment. 

(Dkt. ##23, 24.) For reasons explained below, the undersigned recommends that the motion be 

denied as frivolous.

Case 6:23-cv-00048-JCB-KNM Document 31 Filed 04/25/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:

80
2

I. Discussion and Analysis

Each of Plaintiff’s motions comprises a single page of handwritten text. Neither is sworn, 

and neither is accompanied by any evidence. The first motion simply alleges that he previously 

mailed a notarized affidavit to a PREA ombudsman and made a report to a PREA official in jail

and received no response. (Dkt. #23.) He does not describe the substance of either report or provide 

any other relevant information. In the second motion, he references video evidence he says exists 

in a separate case pending in another court, which he says “would add further support to [his] 

claims” in this case. (Dkt. #24.) He appears to suggest that evidence that staff in the Ferguson unit 

“took no action to protect” him in the other case would support his current claims arising from the 

Michael Unit. (Id.)

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment is 

appropriate where “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and 

the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Motions for summary 

judgment “must” be supported by citations “to particular parts of materials in the record” 

establishing that a fact cannot be genuinely disputed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). A motion for 

summary judgment should be denied when the movant has not demonstrated the absence of 

disputed facts. See Honore v. Douglas, 833 F.2d 565, 570 (5th Cir. 1987) (“Thus, if any facts are 

in dispute, summary judgment is inappropriate.”).

Here, Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment do not even address the facts of this case

in any detail. And they do not add or cite to any evidence in the record to support his claims, much 

less establish that there is no genuine dispute about them. The motions fail to satisfy the standard 

for summary judgment and lack any basis in law or fact. They should therefore be denied as 

frivolous. See Moore v. Cooper, 137 F.3d 1350 (5th Cir. 1998) (describing filing as “without basis 

Case 6:23-cv-00048-JCB-KNM Document 31 Filed 04/25/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:

81
3

in law or fact and, thus, frivolous”).

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment

(Dkt. ##23, 24) be DENIED as frivolous, without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to file a properly 

supported motion for summary judgment after Defendants have filed a responsive pleading and 

initial discovery disclosures have been exchanged. 

Within fourteen (14) days after receipt of the Magistrate Judge’s Report, any party may 

serve and file written objections to the findings and recommendations contained in the Report.

A party’s failure to file written objections to the findings, conclusions and 

recommendations contained in this Report within fourteen days after being served with a copy 

shall bar that party from de novo review by the district judge of those findings, conclusions and 

recommendations and, except on grounds of plain error, from appellate review of unobjected-to 

factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass v. 

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

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 24th day of April, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00048-JCB-KNM Document 31 Filed 04/25/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:

82