Author J. Manning, Jr. v. Paramount

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION AUTHOR J. MANNING, JR., § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23-CV-00444- Plaintiff, § JDK § v. § § PARAMOUNT, DISH NETWORK, § DIRECT TV, AT&T, VIACOM CBS, § COX CABLE, & SONY, § Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Author J. Manning, Jr., proceeding pro se, filed this copyright action against Defendant Paramount in state court on May 9, 2023. Docket No. 3.

Paramount removed the case to federal court. Docket No. 3. Plaintiff subsequently amended his complaint, adding multiple new defendants. Docket No. 11. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case. Docket No. 5.

On November 13, 2023, Plaintiff Manning filed a motion for temporary restraining order, requesting that the Court freeze Defendants’ assets for the full amount of damages sought. Docket No. 28. On December 4, 2023, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order be denied. Docket No. 34. No objections to the Report were filed, and the period in which to do so has passed. See L.R. CV-7(e).

Because objections to Judge Love’s Report have not 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 proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass v. United Services Auto. Assn, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the Report of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918, 109 S. Ct. 3243 (1989) (holding that where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law’).

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report (Docket No. 34) is ADOPTED and that Plaintiff's motion (Docket No. 28) is DENIED.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 4th day of January, 2024. ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE