IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

LOWELL QUINCY GREEN, #518622 §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Case No. 6:23-cv-036-JDK-JDL

§

WARDEN UNKNOWN COOPER, et al. §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Lowell Quincy Green, an inmate of the Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice (TDCJ) proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit alleging violations of his 

constitutional rights in prison without paying the 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 January 23, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and 

Recommendation that the Court bar Plaintiff from proceeding without payment 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and dismiss this case, subject to reopening if Plaintiff 

paid the filing fee within fifteen days of dismissal. Docket No. 2. A copy of this Report 

was sent to Plaintiff, who has submitted two documents the Court deems to be his

written objections. Docket Nos. 3, 5.

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 

Case 6:23-cv-00036-JDK-JDL Document 6 Filed 03/06/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 55
2

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 Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other 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

A party objecting to a Magistrate Judge’s Report must specifically identify 

those findings to which he objects. Frivolous, conclusory, or general objections need 

not be considered by the District Judge. See Nettles v. Wainright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 

& n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc). Furthermore, objections that simply rehash or mirror 

the underlying claims addressed in the Report are not sufficient to entitle the party 

to de novo review. See U.S. v. Morales, 947 F.Supp.2d 166, 171 (D.P.R. 2013) (“Even 

though timely objections to a report and recommendation entitle the objecting party 

to de novo review of the findings, ‘the district court should be spared the chore of 

traversing ground already plowed by the Magistrate.’”) (internal citations omitted); 

see also Vega v. Artuz, 2002 WL 31174466 *1 (S.D. NY Sep. 2002) (unpublished) 

(“However, objections that are merely perfunctory responses argued in an attempt to 

engage the district court in a rehashing of the same arguments set forth in the 

original petition will not suffice to invoke de novo review of the magistrate judge’s 

recommendations.”). 

The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff’s complaint did not allege facts 

establishing an imminent danger of serious physical injury as required for Plaintiff 

to proceed as a pauper in light of his multiple prior suits and appeals that were

dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. Docket No. 2 (citing 28 U.S.C. 

Case 6:23-cv-00036-JDK-JDL Document 6 Filed 03/06/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 56
3

§ 1915(g)). Plaintiff’s objections are rambling and incoherent discussions of his 

underlying claims of false imprisonment and invalid conviction, including 

unsubstantiated accusations unethical conduct by the Magistrate Judge. They do not 

dispute or even address the application of Section 1915(g) to this case, which is the 

basis for the recommended dismissal. 

The Court has conducted a careful de novo review of the record and the 

Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings and recommendations. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 

(District Judge shall “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or 

specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”). Upon 

such de novo review, the Court has determined that the Report of the United States 

Magistrate Judge is correct, and Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. Accordingly, 

it is

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 2) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. Plaintiff’s 

objections (Docket Nos. 3, 5) are OVERRULED. This case is DISMISSED with

prejudice for purposes of proceeding as a pauper under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), but 

without prejudice as to reopening upon full payment of the filing fee within fifteen 

days of judgment or the refiling of the lawsuit with pre-payment of the full filing fee. 

Any pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6th March, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00036-JDK-JDL Document 6 Filed 03/06/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 57