No. 6:23-cv-00535

James Anthony Hunter,

Plaintiff,

v.

Smith County et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER 

Plaintiff James Hunter, an inmate confined in the Smith 

County Jail, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Doc. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate 

Judge Love pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) for all pretrial purposes, including proposed findings of fact and recommendations 

for disposition. Doc. 3. After ordering plaintiff to amend his complaint, Judge Love undertook screening of the instant action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Section 1915A requires the court to 

identify cognizable claims in a prisoner’s complaint and dismiss 

complaints that are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted. On April 29, 2024, Judge Love 

issued a report and recommendation recommending that plaintiff’s claims be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(b). Doc. 10. Plaintiff filed an objection. Doc. 12. 

The court reviews the objected-to portions of a report and recommendation 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).

Plaintiff objects only to the magistrate judge’s recommendation that plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is moot because 

he had been moved from the Smith County Jail to Rusk State Hospital. Doc. 12. Plaintiff contends that he completed his treatment 

at Rusk State Hospital and is set to be transferred back to Smith 

Case 6:23-cv-00535-JCB-JDL Document 15 Filed 07/29/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 62
- 2 -

County any time between now and July. Id. On May 24, 2024, 

plaintiff filed his notice of change of address from Rusk State Hospital to Smith County Jail, indicating that he has since been transferred back to Smith County. Doc. 13. 

Plaintiff has failed to address the magistrate judge’s underlying 

conclusion that he has failed to state a claim upon which relief may 

be granted against any named defendant. Indeed, plaintiff does not 

object to any of the magistrate judge’s findings underlying the magistrate judge’s conclusion that plaintiff failed to state a claim. The 

fact that his injunctive relief may no longer be moot does not change 

the outcome of the screening of plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A because plaintiff is not entitled to any relief unless 

he first states a claim. 

The court therefore reviews these conclusions only for clear 

error. Douglass, 79 F.3d at 1420. Having reviewed the magistrate 

judge’s report (Doc. 10) and being satisfied that it contains no 

clear error with respect to plaintiff’s asserted claims against defendants, the court accepts these findings and recommendations. 

Accordingly, this case is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The dismissal of this action under 

§ 1915A(b)(1) counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See 

Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff is 

warned that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed 

while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g). All motions pending in this civil action are denied as 

moot.

So ordered by the court on July 29, 2024.

J. CAMPBELL BARKER

United States District Judge

Case 6:23-cv-00535-JCB-JDL Document 15 Filed 07/29/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 63