Justin Wright v. Jane Doe

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION JUSTIN WRIGHT, #1949550, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:21-cv-280-JDK-KNM § TDCJ-CID DIRECTOR, et al., § § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Justin Wright, a prisoner of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 about alleged violations of his constitutional rights in prison. The case was referred to United States Magistrate K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.

Plaintiff filed two motions for preliminary injunction on February 14, 2022, and March 24, 2022. Docket Nos. 31, 40. On April 4, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued two Reports recommending that those motions be denied. Docket Nos. 43, 44. Copies of both Reports were mailed to Plaintiff on April 4, 2022, and he did not file written objections to either Report within the time provided.

This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a party objects within fourteen days 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 Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).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 her legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth 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 Reports 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 Reports and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket Nos. 43, 44) as the findings of this Court. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunction (Docket Nos. 31, 40) are DENIED.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 19th day of May, 2022. qn 2 Kode JERGMY D, KERNODIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE