1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

ANTONIO A. GARCIA, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNKNOWN STAFF, et al., 

 Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 6:23-cv-585-JDK-JDL 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Antonio Garcia, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice inmate 

proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case 

was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636. 

On March 25, 2024, Judge Love issued a Report and Recommendation 

recommending that the Court dismiss this case with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Docket 

No. 18. Plaintiff objected. Docket No. 21. 

Where a party timely objects to the Report and Recommendation, the Court 

reviews the objected-to findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo. 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 Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other 

Case 6:23-cv-00585-JDK-JDL Document 22 Filed 04/25/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 106
2 

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

ten to fourteen days). 

In his objections, Plaintiff first objects to having a magistrate judge assigned 

to this case. Docket No. 18 at 1. The Court referred this case to U.S. Magistrate 

Judge Love pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Judge Love conducted an initial 

screening of the pleadings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Federal Magistrate 

Act of 1979 provides the authority for the district court to refer any non-dispositive, 

pretrial matter to a magistrate judge for determination and to designate a magistrate 

judge to conduct hearings and submit proposed findings of fact and recommendations 

for disposition of a matter to the district judge. Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235, 1242 

(5th Cir. 1989). The consent of the parties is not required for such referral. Newsome 

v. EEOC, 301 F.3d 227, 230 (5th Cir. 2002) (“The consent of the parties is not required 

under this section.”); Roell v. Withrow, 538 U.S. 580, 585 (2003) (referring to referrals 

under Section 636(b) as “nonconsensual referrals”); Jackson, 864 F.2d at 1242 

(holding that “[n]o such consent is required” for referrals under Section 636(b)); Ford 

v. Estelle, 740 F.2d 374, 377 (5th Cir. 1984) (explaining that Section 636(b)(1) “allows 

a district court to refer to a magistrate without consent of the parties”). The screening 

of pleadings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and submitting proposed findings of fact 

and recommendations based on that screening is well within the statutory authority 

of a magistrate judge. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objection on this point is overruled. 

Plaintiff next objects to the Report’s characterization of his pleadings and 

states that the director of food services and laundry committed a criminal act on a 

Case 6:23-cv-00585-JDK-JDL Document 22 Filed 04/25/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 107
3 

recorded interview that was published for all inmates to view. Docket. No. 21 at 2. 

Plaintiff loosely refers to a TDCJ policy regarding women and children and creating 

a facility for getting women pregnant while in prison. Id. Plaintiff states that he 

filed grievances on these claims, but that they were unprocessed as out of time. Id. 

Plaintiff’s factual allegations simply do not state a claim and appear to be the 

product of delusion. The Fifth Circuit has held that a complaint lacks an arguable 

basis in fact when “the facts alleged are fantastic or delusional scenarios or the legal 

theory upon which a complaint relies is indisputably meritless.” Samford v. Dretke, 

562 F.3d 674, 678 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th 

Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted)). In other words, during the initial 

screening under § 1915A, a court may determine that a prisoner’s complaint is 

frivolous if it rests upon delusional scenarios or baseless facts—and dismiss the 

complaint. See Henry v. Kerr County, Texas, 2016 WL 2344231 *3 (W.D. Tex. May 2, 

2016) (“A court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only if the facts alleged are 

clearly baseless, fanciful, fantastic, delusional, or otherwise rise to the level of the 

irrational or the wholly incredible, regardless of whether there are judicially 

noticeable facts available to contradict them.”) (citing Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 

25, 32–33 (1992)). Plaintiff’s allegations that a state facility exists for the purposes 

of getting incarcerated women pregnant lacks an arguable basis in fact. Plaintiff’s 

loose allegations regarding a sexually explicit video published to all inmates similarly 

lacks an arguable basis in fact and fails to state a claim. 

Case 6:23-cv-00585-JDK-JDL Document 22 Filed 04/25/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 108
4 

Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff is asserting a claim regarding how his 

grievances were handled with respect to his assertion of these claims, an inmate does 

not have a constitutional right to a grievance procedure. Staples v. Keffer, 419 F. 

App’x 461, 463 (5th Cir. 2011) (citing Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373–74 (5th Cir. 

2005)). And there is no federally protected liberty interest in having grievances 

resolved to an inmate’s satisfaction. See Geiger, 404 F.3d at 374 (because “[plaintiff] 

does not have a federally protected liberty interest in having [his] grievances resolved 

to his satisfaction . . . any alleged due process violation arising from the alleged failure 

to investigate his grievances is indisputably meritless.”). Having reviewed the 

pleadings, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s claims against 

Defendants should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). 

Plaintiff further objects to the dismissal of his case without first ruling on his 

numerous motions filed in this case. Docket No. 21 at 3. But 28 U.S.C. § 1915A 

imposes a threshold screening responsibility on the Court, expressly stating that “the 

court shall review, before docketing, if feasible, or in any event as soon as practicable 

after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prison seeks redress from a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” (emphasis 

added). As such, the Court is under no obligation to rule on any of Plaintiff’s pending 

motions before the screening of his complaint under § 1915A. Further, even 

considering Plaintiff’s numerous filed motions (Docket Nos. 3, 4, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 

16, 17, 19), none of the allegations therein give merit to any asserted claim. As such, 

Plaintiff’s allegations remain subject to dismissal. 

Case 6:23-cv-00585-JDK-JDL Document 22 Filed 04/25/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 109
5 

Last, Plaintiff appears to object to an order issued in a separate case creating 

a new cause, Case No. 6:23-cv-614. Docket No. 21 at 3. No such order was issued in 

this case, and nothing in Plaintiff’s objections indicate that the complained-of action 

was related to this case. As such, any objection based upon action taken in another 

case is not properly before the Court. 

Having conducted a de novo review of the record in this case and the 

Magistrate Judge’s Report, the Court has determined that the Report of the 

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

the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 18) as 

the opinion of the District Court. Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED with prejudice 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The dismissal of this action counts as a 

qualifying dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383 

(5th Cir. 1996), abrogated in part on other grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 

532, 534–41 (2015). 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25th April, 2024.

Case 6:23-cv-00585-JDK-JDL Document 22 Filed 04/25/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 110