Kavanaugh v. Jackson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION ANTHONY C. KAVANAUGH, #2214786, § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:19-CV-00150-RWS-KNM Plaintiff, § § v. § § NORRIS JACKSON, ET AL., § § Defendant. § ORDER Plaintiff Anthony Kavanaugh, a former inmate confined within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations for the disposition of the case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636.

On January 31, 2022, Judge Mitchell issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s motions for a preliminary injunction (Docket Nos. 33, 38) be denied as moot given Plaintiff’s release from imprisonment. Docket No. 41. A copy of this Report was sent to Plaintiff at his last-known address. To date, however, Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Report.

Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report have been filed, Plaintiff is barred from de novo review by the District Judge of those findings, conclusions and recommendations, and except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. 28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1)(C); Douglass v. United Services Automobile Assoc., 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the pleadings and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and agrees with the Report. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 683 (1980) (“[T]he statute permits the district court to give to the magistrate’s proposed findings of fact and recommendations ‘such weight as [their] merit commands and the sound discretion of the judge warrants.’ ”) (quoting Mathews v. Weber, 23 U.S. 261, 275 (1976)). It is accordingly ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 41) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions for a preliminary injunction (Docket Nos. 33, 38) are DENIED AS MOOT.