1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

DAVID ALLEN MORGAN, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

OFFICER DAVIS, et al., 

 Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 6:24-cv-54-JDK-JDL 

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff David Allen Morgan filed this pro se civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 while he was a Texas Department of Criminal Justice Inmate. The 

case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love for findings of fact, 

conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition. 

Before the Court is Defendants Alsobrooke, Hillhouse, and Massey’s motion for 

summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 

Docket No. 22. On July 2, 2024, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that the 

Court grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismiss this case with 

prejudice. Docket No. 25. The Report noted that although Defendant Davis was not 

served and did not join the motion, the failure-to-exhaust defense inured to his 

benefit. Lewis v. Lynn, 236 F.3d 766, 768 (5th Cir. 2001). A copy of this Report was 

sent to Plaintiff at his last-known address but was returned as undeliverable due to 

Case 6:24-cv-00054-JDK-JDL Document 27 Filed 08/05/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 100
2 

his release. Docket No. 26. Plaintiff has not filed objections or otherwise 

communicated with the Court—including to update his address. 

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superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to 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. 25) as the findings of this Court and 

GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 22). It is therefore 

ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice as to all Defendants for 

failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Case 6:24-cv-00054-JDK-JDL Document 27 Filed 08/05/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 101
3 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5th August, 2024.

Case 6:24-cv-00054-JDK-JDL Document 27 Filed 08/05/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 102