UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

HENRY B. BERROCAL, ET AL., § § Plaintiffs, § § v. § § SA-25-CV-0503-FB THE STATE OF TEXAS; ET AL., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 14) (“R&R”), filed on June 11, 2025. The Magistrate Judge therein recommends that the Court deny the Plaintiff, Henry B. Berrocal’s Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 13). Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report. Plaintiff filed this motion seeking removal of squatters in his home and the appointment of two federal officers to protect him and his residence. (Id.). In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge explained that a court may only issue a temporary restraining order without notice to the opposing parties when the person seeking injunctive relief “certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” FED. R. CIV. P. 62(b)(1)(B). Further, Rule 65(b) requires that a person seeking injunctive relief provide the court with an affidavit or verified complaint demonstrating the need for such relief. FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b)(1)(A). In this case, Berrocal has not demonstrated he made an attempt to give notice or provide any reason why notice should not be given. Nor has Berrocal provided the court with an affidavit or verified complaint demonstrating the need for such relief. FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b)(1)(A). Moreover, because only one of the 22 Defendants has answered, the remaining 21 Defendants will not have notice of Berrocal’s motion. Thus, Berrocal is not entitled to a temporary restraining order. See Davis v. Angelina Coll. Bd. of Trs., No. 17-cv-179,

, at *] & n.l (E.D. Tex. Oct. 19, 2017) (recommending denial of a temporary restraining order because the pro se plaintiff failed to certify any efforts taken to provide notice to the defendants), R & R adopted,

(E.D. Tex. Nov. 13, 2017). Plaintiff did not object to the magistrate judge’s finding or recommendation. Accordingly, the Court reviews the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations for clear error. United States v. Wilson,

(Sth Cir. 1989). Having reviewed the recommendation for clear error and finding no clear error, the Court ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 14); and DENIES the Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 13). SIGNED this 27th day of October, 2025.

ED STATES DISTRICT E