govinfo:USCOURTS-txed-9_18-cv-00120-2

**NOT FOR PRINTED PUBLICATION**
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUFKIN DIVISION
CLARENCE WRIGHT §
VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:18-CV-120
TEXAS DEP’T OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, §
ET AL.
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND ACCEPTING
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Clarence Wright, a prisoner confined at the Polunsky Unit of the Texas Department 
of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis , 
filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and 
Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc , against the Texas Department 
of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division and Bryan Collier.
The Court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States 
Magistrate Judge, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this Court. The 
Magistrate Judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate 
Judge. The Magistrate Judge recommends granting defendant Collier’s motion to partially 
dismiss the complaint, and allowing plaintiff to proceed with his claim for injunctive relief under 
the RLUIPA and with his Fourteenth Amendment claim.
The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States 
Magistrate Judg e, along with the record and th e pleading s. Plaintiff filed objections to the PageID #: 
<pageID>
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff alleges he did not receive the Report and 
Recommendation in a timely fashion due to issues in the prison mail room, but the Court has applied 
no response deadline to him in this case. Therefore, the Court has conducted a de novo review of 
the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). 
Plaintiff contends that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar his claims for monetary 
damages under the RLUIPA because the State of Texas waived its sovereign immunity under the 
Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution by accepting federal funds for prisons. The 
United States Supreme Court rejected this precise argument in Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. 277, 280 
(2011). The Supreme Court held that States do not waive their sovereign immunity to private suits 
for monetary damages under the RLUIPA by accepting federal funds. Id . at 293. After careful 
consideration of all the pleadings and the relevant case law, the Court concludes that plaintiff’s 
objections lack merit. 
ORDER
Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections (docket entry #64) are OVERRULED. The findings of 
fact and conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and the report of the Magistrate 
Judge (docket entry #60) is ACCEPTED. Defendant Collier’s motion to partially dismiss the action 
(docket entry #48) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall be permitted to proceed with his claim for 
injunctive relief under the RLUIPA and with his Fourteenth Amendment claim.
2 PageID #: 
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight