UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

REGINALD L. GROSS, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-279

§

STEPHEN J. COX, et al., §

§

Defendants. §

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING 

THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Reginald L. Gross, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled civil rights lawsuit pursuant

to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, (1971), 

against Stephen J. Cox, Michelle S. Englade, Jonathan Clay Lee and Mark Terry. The court

previously referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge,

at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and orders of this court. The

magistrate judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge

recommending the case be dismissed for seeking monetary relief from defendants immune from

such relief and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

In his Report and Recommendation, the magistrate judge concluded that defendants Cox,

Englade and Lee, as prosecutors, were entitled to absolute immunity. The magistrate judge further

concluded plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim against defendant Terry could not be asserted

under Bivens.

The court has received the Report and Recommendation, along with the record, pleadings,

and all available evidence. Plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation.

The court has conducted a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and

the applicable law. After careful consideration, the court is of the opinion plaintiff’s objections

are without merit. Plaintiff continues to assert that defendants Cox, Englade and Lee acted

Case 1:23-cv-00279-MAC-ZJH Document 24 Filed 06/27/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 173
improperly while prosecuting him. Plaintiff does not, however, contest the magistrate judge’s

conclusion that their actions were taken in connection with the initiation and prosecution of

plaintiff’s criminal case. These defendants are therefore entitled to absolute immunity. Imbler v.

Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31 (1976). With respect to the malicious prosecution claim against

defendant Terry, plaintiff states that in order to establish a claim for malicious prosecution, he is 

not required to show the prosecution ended with some affirmative indication of innocence. In 

his Report, however, the magistrate judge did not state that an affirmative indication of

innocence was required. Instead, the magistrate judge concluded that the remedy provided by

Bivens should not be expanded to include a claim for malicious prosecution. The court agrees with

this conclusion. Cantu v. Moody, 933 F.3d 414, 421 (5th Cir. 2019).

ORDER

Accordingly, the objections filed by plaintiff in this matter (#23) are OVERRULED. The

findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the report of the magistrate judge (#17) are

correct, and the report of the magistrate judge is ADOPTED. A final judgment shall be entered

in accordance with the recommendation of the magistrate judge.

2

________________________________________

MARCIA A. CRONE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 27th day of June, 2024.

Case 1:23-cv-00279-MAC-ZJH Document 24 Filed 06/27/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 174