Hennington v. Edwards

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

CLIFTON B. HENNINGTON, #2069964 § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20cv523 FREDRIC EDWARDS § ORDER DENYING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER This action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love, who issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 8) concluding that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (Docket No. 7) should be denied. Plaintiff has filed objections. Docket No. 10.

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 Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).

Plaintiff’s objections are not specific objections to the Report. Plaintiff argues that he avoids the defendant and other prison officials because of his emotional and mental “actual injury” and that should be sufficient to grant him a temporary restraining order. Docket No. 10, p. 4.

Frivolous, conclusory, or general objections need not be considered by the district court. See Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (Sth Cir. 1996) (en banc); see also Valez- Pedro v. Thermo King De Puerto Rico, Inc., 465 F.3d 31, 32 (st Cir. 2006) (explaining that an objecting party must put forth more than “[cJonclusory allegations that do not direct the reviewing court to the issues in controversy’’).

The Court has conducted a careful de novo review of the record and the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings and recommendations. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (explaining the district judge shall “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made”). Having reviewed the Report and Plaintiff’ □ objections, the Court has determined that the Report is correct, and the objections are without merit. It is accordingly ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 8) is ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED that the motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (Docket No. 7) is DENIED. Plaintiff's request for a hearing pertaining to his request for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order is DENIED.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 9th day of November, 2020. qe D Kobe JERQMY D, RERNODIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE