# Heard

> District Court, W.D. Louisiana · February 24, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11309199

## Case

- **Full name:** Damiena Trumel Heard v. Jordan McCormick, ET AL.
- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** February 24, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11309199

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11309199. Public record. Not legal advice.