1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

FRED A. DIXON, JR., #01465237, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

SKYVIEW LAW LIBRARY 

CORRESPONDENT, 

 Defendant. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 6:23-cv-362-JDK-JDL 

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Fred A. Dixon, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice inmate 

proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The 

case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings 

of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition. 

On August 1, 2023, Judge Mitchell issued a Report recommending that the 

Court dismiss this case with prejudice for purposes of proceeding in forma pauperis 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), but without prejudice as to the refiling of his lawsuit upon 

satisfaction of three conditions: (1) payment of the $100.00 sanction imposed by the 

Northern District of Texas; (2) receiving written permission to file a new lawsuit; and 

(3) payment of the full $402.00 filing fee. Docket No. 4. A copy of the Report was

mailed to Plaintiff, who received it on August 4, 2023. Docket No. 5. Plaintiff has 

not filed objections. 

Case 6:23-cv-00362-JDK-KNM Document 6 Filed 12/01/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 12
2 

This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de 

novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service 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superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to 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. 4) as the findings of this Court and 

DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice for purposes of proceeding in forma 

pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) but without prejudice as to the refiling of his 

lawsuit after satisfying the three conditions stated above and in the Magistrate 

Judge’s Report. 

Case 6:23-cv-00362-JDK-KNM Document 6 Filed 12/01/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 13
3 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1st December, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00362-JDK-KNM Document 6 Filed 12/01/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 14