1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

RANDALL ALLAN COUNTS, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

BARBRA NEAL, et al., 

 Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 6:23-cv-333-JDK-JDL 

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Randall Allan Counts, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice 

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

The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love for findings 

of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition. 

On April 10, 2024, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that the Court 

dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their official capacities without 

prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief as 

moot, dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Lumpkin, Adeniran, and 

Marshall in their individual capacities with prejudice for failure to state a claim 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant 

Neal without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). 

Docket No. 17. A copy of this Report was sent to Plaintiff. However, no objections 

have been received. 

Case 6:23-cv-00333-JDK-JDL Document 19 Filed 06/03/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 83
2 

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superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to 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. 17) as the findings of this Court. It is 

therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their official 

capacities are DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s 

claim for injunctive relief is DISMISSED with prejudice as moot. Plaintiff’s claims 

against Defendants Lumpkin, Adeniran, and Marshall in their individual capacities 

are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

Case 6:23-cv-00333-JDK-JDL Document 19 Filed 06/03/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 84
3 

1915A(b)(1). Finally, Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Neal in her individual 

capacity is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). 

So ordered and signed on this 

Jun 3, 2024

Case 6:23-cv-00333-JDK-JDL Document 19 Filed 06/03/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 85