1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

RICHARD DAVID PETERSON, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

GREGG COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE, 

 Defendant. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 6:23-cv-341-JDK-JDL 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Richard Peterson, 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 August 11, 2023, Judge Love issued a Report and Recommendation 

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

§ 19115A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Docket 

No. 9. Plaintiff objected. Docket No. 13. 

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 Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other 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-00341-JDK-JDL Document 15 Filed 09/07/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 124
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 reiterates his contention that he is being beaten up 

in the Gregg County Jail because certain correctional officers have told other inmates 

about his charge. Docket No. 13. Although Plaintiff now identifies “C/O Mason” as 

the person who has allegedly told people about his charge in the jail, he fails to allege 

facts amounting to a constitutional violation. Specifically, Plaintiff has not alleged 

that “C/O Mason” actually knew of a substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiff and 

failed to act. See Oliver v. Collins, 914 F.2d 56, 60 (5th Cir. 1990). Further, Plaintiff 

has not named “C/O Mason” as a Defendant in this matter, asserting only allegations 

against the Gregg County Sheriff’s Office, and the doctrine of respondeat superior

does not apply to § 1983 claims. Williams v. Luna, 909 F.2d 121, 123 (5th Cir. 1990). 

Moreover, Plaintiff’s loose allegations regarding medical treatment he has received 

since being incarcerated fail to allege any facts regarding whether he received 

constitutionally sufficient treatment for those injuries. 

Plaintiff also complains about his access to the law library and inability to fight 

his criminal case. Docket No. 13. As discussed in the Report and Recommendation, 

Plaintiff has alleged that he has a lawyer, Rick Hagan, and thus he has 

constitutionally sufficient access to the courts. Plaintiff continues to assert that he 

wants a paid lawyer, not a court appointed lawyer, but the right at issue does not 

extend that far. See, e.g., Caraballo v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 124 F. App’x 284, 

285 (5th Cir. 2005) (inmate who was represented by court-appointed counsel had no 

Case 6:23-cv-00341-JDK-JDL Document 15 Filed 09/07/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 125
3 

constitutional right of access to a law library in preparing his defense). As such, the 

Court agrees that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim and that this action should be 

dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). 

In addition to his objections, Plaintiff has filed a third amended complaint in 

this case. Docket No. 14. The allegations therein contain general complaints about 

his conditions of confinement. The Court already discussed how these allegations 

were not properly presented in this case. Docket No 9 at 6–8. Indeed, Plaintiff failed 

to comply with a Court order that ordered him to amend and address the issue of 

misjoinder of his claims. Docket No. 4. In response, Plaintiff instead filed three 

wholly noncompliant amended complaints addressing a variety of unrelated claims. 

Docket Nos. 7, 8, 14. For this reason, the Court severed his conditions of confinement 

claims from this action as they were not properly presented in compliance with the 

Court’s order. Docket No. 9. The Court has additional concerns regarding the 

sufficiency of those claims, but has allowed Plaintiff an opportunity to amend those 

claims in the severed action. See Case No. 6:23-cv-417, Docket No. 3. The filing of 

the additional amended complaint in this matter only demonstrates the futility of 

further amendment. See Norman v. Tex. Ct. of Crim. Appeals, 582 F. App’x 430, 431 

(5th Cir. 2014) (unpublished); Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 767-68 (5th Cir. 2009). 

Therefore, as pleaded, the entirety of this case is dismissed with prejudice for failure 

to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). 

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 

Case 6:23-cv-00341-JDK-JDL Document 15 Filed 09/07/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 126
4 

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

the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 9) as the 

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

failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7th September, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00341-JDK-JDL Document 15 Filed 09/07/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 127