IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

REIDIE JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v. 

BOBBY LUMPKIN, ET AL.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-CV-20-RWS-JBB

ORDER

Before the Court are Plaintiff Reidie Jackson’s § 1983 civil rights claims. Docket No. 2. 

Plaintiff initially filed Case No. 5:21-cv-149 in the form of a petition for habeas corpus that also 

raised § 1983 civil rights claims.1 The § 1983 claims were severed into the present lawsuit, which 

was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Boone Baxter in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. 

Docket No. 1. 

The Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed 

because Plaintiff has filed at least three lawsuits or appeals which have been dismissed as frivolous 

or for failure to state a claim. Docket No. 6 at 4. Accordingly, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Plaintiff 

is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis unless he shows that he is in imminent danger of 

serious physical injury at the time of the filing of the lawsuit. Id. at 3–4. After review of the 

pleadings, including the original complaint, the Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff had not

paid the filing fee nor shown imminent danger at the time of filing. See id. at 4. 

1 Plaintiff’s petition for writ of habeas corpus was ultimately dismissed. See Case No. 5:21-cv149, Docket Nos. 38, 39. 

Case 5:24-cv-00020-RWS-JBB Document 8 Filed 04/12/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 69
Page 2 of 2

Because no objections have been received, Plaintiff is barred from de novo review by the 

District Judge of the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations and, 

except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings 

and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. See Duarte v. City of Lewisville,

Texas, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017); Arriaga v. Laxminarayan, Case No. 4:21-CV-00203-

RAS, 2021 WL 3287683, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2021).

The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this case and the Report of the Magistrate Judge. 

Upon such review, the Court has determined the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See 

United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate 

Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and 

contrary to law”). Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the opinion of the 

District Court. It is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff Reidie Jackson is denied in forma pauperis status and the abovestyled civil action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to the refiling of another in forma 

pauperis lawsuit raising the same claims as herein presented, but without prejudice to the refiling 

of the lawsuit upon payment of the full $405.00 filing fee. Should Plaintiff pay the full filing fee 

within 15 days after the date of entry of dismissal, he shall be allowed to proceed in the lawsuit as 

though the full fee were paid from the outset. Payment of the filing fee will not affect the process 

of screening for frivolousness or failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

.

 

____________________________________

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 12th day of April, 2024.

Case 5:24-cv-00020-RWS-JBB Document 8 Filed 04/12/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 70