1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

ANTONIO A. GARCIA, #01052874, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, et al., 

 Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 6:23-cv-586-JDK-JDL 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Antonio A. 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 January 12, 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) and 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted. Docket No. 12. Plaintiff objected. Docket No. 19. 

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 Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other 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-00586-JDK-JDL Document 22 Filed 02/27/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 79
2 

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

ten to fourteen days). 

The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal largely because Plaintiff’s 

amended complaint, which the Court ordered him to file after finding that his original 

complaint was deficient, is vague and conclusory and fails to allege any specific facts 

that would support a claim that Plaintiff’s personal rights have been violated. Docket 

No. 12 at 4. Plaintiff’s submission does not dissuade the Court from that conclusion. 

First, Plaintiff suggests that the Magistrate Judge wrongfully recommended 

dismissal without giving Plaintiff sufficient time to amend his complaint as ordered. 

Docket No. 19 at 1. But the Court’s January 12, 2024 Report clearly considers the 

amended complaint received from Plaintiff on January 10, 2024 (Docket No. 10). 

Docket No. 12 at 2 (“Plaintiff’s amended complaint is now before the Court for 

screening. (Dkt. #10.)”). 

Plaintiff repeatedly notes his dissatisfaction with the Court’s handling of his 

case, suggesting that any deficiencies in his complaint are “between [him] and the 

Defendant” and “the Judge don’t have to like it.” Docket No. 19 at 2. But the 

Prison Litigation Reform Act requires the Court to screen and dismiss any 

complaint filed by a prisoner who proceeds in forma pauperis or sues a 

governmental entity if it fails to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2). 

Finally, the Plaintiff mentions for the first time that his lawsuit has something 

to do with intentional fires and smoke in his prison unit. Docket No. 19 at 2–3. But, 

despite the Magistrate Judge’s clear admonition to Plaintiff to explain how and when 

Case 6:23-cv-00586-JDK-JDL Document 22 Filed 02/27/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 80
3 

his constitutional rights had been violated and how he was harmed or injured by those 

violations (Docket No. 3 at 2), Plaintiff still only vaguely references “dead inmates” 

and does not allege that he personally has sustained any injuries or that he faces a 

substantial risk of serious harm. Docket No. 19 at 3. 

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. 12) as 

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted. 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26th February, 2024.

Case 6:23-cv-00586-JDK-JDL Document 22 Filed 02/27/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 81