Opinion

Heard

Court
District Court, W.D. Louisiana
Filed
Feb 24, 2026
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 40.1%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

SHREVEPORT DIVISION

DAMIENA TRUMEL HEARD CIVIL ACTION NO. 25-1723-P

VERSUS JUDGE HICKS

JORDAN MCCORMICK, ET AL. MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

In accordance with the standing order of this court, this matter was referred to the

undersigned Magistrate Judge for review, report and recommendation.

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Before the court is a civil rights complaint filed in forma pauperis by pro se plaintiff

Damiena Trumel Heard (“Plaintiff”), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This complaint was

received and filed in this court on November 7, 2025. Plaintiff was incarcerated at the

Bossier Maximum Security Center in Plain Dealing, Louisiana, when he filed this

complaint. He names Jordan McCormick, Russell Engi, Schyler Marvin, IDB Board, and

Bossier City as defendants.

This court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on January 8,

2026 [Doc. 3]. However, that order was returned to this court on January 16, 2026, by the

United States Postal Service marked “RETURN TO SENDER -released.” To date,

Plaintiff has not informed this court of his new address.

Accordingly;

IT IS RECOMMENDED that this complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE, sua sponte, for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure as interpreted by the court and under the court's inherent power

to control its own docket. See Link v. Wabash Railroad Company, 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct.

1386 (1962); Rogers v. Kroger Company, 669 F.2d 317, 320-321 (5th Cir. 1982).

OBJECTIONS

Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), parties

aggrieved by this recommendation have fourteen (14) days from service of this Report and

Recommendation to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court unless an

extension of time is granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). A party may respond to another

party’s objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof.

Counsel are directed to furnish a courtesy copy of any objections or responses to the

District Judge at the time of filing.

A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and

recommendation set forth above, within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy

shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the

proposed factual findings and legal conclusions that were accepted by the district court and

that were not objected to by the aforementioned party. See Douglas v. U.S.A.A., 79 F.3d

1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

Page 2 of 3

THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in chambers, at Shreveport, Louisiana, on this

23" day of February 2026.

Mark L. Hornsby

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Page 3 of 3

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.