Facts
- The SEC initiated a civil action against Ubong Uboh and Tyler Crockett on April 15, 2021, alleging fraudulent schemes violating federal securities laws [lines="12-18"].
- The SEC's complaint included claims that Uboh and Crockett solicited investments from senior citizens and misappropriated funds through misleading representations [lines="42-49"].
- Uboh was indicted for related conduct on the same day the SEC's complaint was filed, highlighting parallel criminal charges against him [lines="76-81"].
- Uboh pleaded guilty on August 4, 2022, to conspiracy to commit securities fraud, and was sentenced to 60 months in prison with a restitution order [lines="93-100"].
- Uboh’s motion to dismiss the SEC's proposed final judgment, claiming it violated Double Jeopardy principles, prompted the Court's examination of the Consent Judgment issued on February 22, 2023 [lines="152-155"], [lines="263"].
Issues
- Whether the SEC's proposed sanctions after Uboh's criminal conviction infringe upon Double Jeopardy protections [lines="234-235"].
- Whether the permanent ban on Uboh's participation in penny stock offerings is justified or constitutes an overreach [lines="638-644"].
Holdings
- The Court found that Uboh waived any Double Jeopardy claims related to the SEC's sanctions in the executed consent agreement, thus his argument lacks merit [lines="264-314"].
- The Court upheld the imposition of the penny stock bar as it aligned with the egregiousness of Uboh’s violations and the likelihood of recidivism, affirming its appropriateness [lines="677-708"].
OPINION
Case Information
*1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
§
RANDALL ALLAN COUNTS, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § Case No. 6:23-cv-333-JDK-JDL
§
BARBRA NEAL, et al., §
§
Defendants. §
§
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Randall Allan Counts, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition.
On April 10, 2024, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their official capacities without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief as moot, dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Lumpkin, Adeniran, and Marshall in their individual capacities with prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Neal without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Docket No. 17. A copy of this Report was sent to Plaintiff. However, no objections have been received.
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. 17) as the findings of this Court. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their official capacities are without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is DISMISSED with prejudice as moot. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Lumpkin, Adeniran, and Marshall in their individual capacities are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § *3 1915A(b)(1). Finally, Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Neal in her individual capacity is without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
So ordered and signed on this Jun 3, 2024
