1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

DENNIS PARTAKA, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

MAJOR JOHNSON, et al., 

 Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 6:23-cv-525-JDK-KNM 

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Dennis Partaka, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice inmate 

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

the original and amended complaints in this case also listed two other inmates, 

Jonathan Pendleton and Matthew Jones, as plaintiffs, but neither signed the 

amended complaint. See Docket No. 6. The case was referred to United States 

Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 

recommendations for disposition. 

Before the Court is Plaintiff Partaka’s motion for voluntary dismissal. Docket 

No. 7. On February 5, 2024, Judge Mitchell issued a Report recommending that the 

Court grant Plaintiff’s motion and dismiss Partaka’s claims in this case without 

prejudice. Docket No. 8. The Report also recommended that the Court dismiss 

without prejudice Pendleton’s and Jones’s claims in this case as duplicative of 

pending claims in another case. See Partaka v. Johnson, No. 6:24-cv-31 (E.D. Tex. 

Case 6:23-cv-00525-JDK-KNM Document 12 Filed 03/14/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 43
2 

Jan. 22, 2024. A copy of this Report was sent to each Plaintiff in this case. No 

objections have been received. 

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superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to 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. 8) as the findings of this Court. The 

Court GRANTS Plaintiff Partaka’s motion for voluntary dismissal (Docket No. 7). It 

is therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice based on 

Plaintiff Dennis Partaka’s motion and as duplicative concerning Plaintiffs Jonathan 

Case 6:23-cv-00525-JDK-KNM Document 12 Filed 03/14/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 44
3 

Pendleton and Matthew Jones’s claims. The dismissal of this lawsuit shall have no 

effect upon other pending litigation involving these Plaintiffs. 

Signed this

Mar 14, 2024

Case 6:23-cv-00525-JDK-KNM Document 12 Filed 03/14/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 45