Hinton v. Harrell

Full title: CHARLES RAY HINTON v. DEBRA M. HARRELL

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Beaumont Division

Date published: Aug 30, 2005

Civil Action No. 1:05cv501 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2005)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 1:05cv501.

August 30, 2005

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Crone, Marcia, Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff Charles Ray Hinton, an inmate at the Stiles Unit, proceeding pro se, brought this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Debra M. Harrell.

The court referred this matter to the Honorable Keith F. Giblin, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The magistrate judge recommends plaintiff's complaint be dismissed as barred by sanctions previously imposed and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such order, along with the record, pleadings and all available evidence. Plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation. This requires a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).

After careful consideration, the court concludes plaintiff's objections are without merit. Further, plaintiff's claims are frivolous and fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff contests the alleged deprivation of property without due process. However, "[t]he Due Process Clause is not implicated by a state official's negligent act causing unintended loss of property and even intentional destruction of an inmate's property does not raise a constitutional claim if an adequate post-deprivation remedy exists." Simmons v. Poppell, 837 F.2d 1243, 1244 (5th Cir. 1988) (citing Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986) and Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984)); Allen v. Thomas, 388 F.3d 147, 149 (5^th Cir. 2004). Texas provides such a remedy. See Murphy v. Collins, 26 F.3d 541, 543 (5th Cir. 1994); Dickerson v. City of Denton, 298 F.Supp.2d 537, 542 (E.D. Tex. 2004). Accordingly, plaintiff's claim regarding his property is frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

ORDER

Accordingly, plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct and the report of the magistrate judge is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate judge's recommendations.