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

TY BRETT PIERCE, #2499789, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:25-cv-339-JDK-KNM § ALICIA AN, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a prisoner of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to

about alleged violations of his constitutional rights in prison and moved for a temporary restraining order and a declaratory judgment. 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. On October 8, 2025, Judge Mitchell submitted a Report and Recommendation that Plaintiff’s motions for declaratory and preliminary injunctive relief be denied. Docket No. 17. A copy of this Report was mailed to Plaintiff, who received it on October 29, 2025, but has not filed timely written objections. Docket No. 22. 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.

(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. Assn,

(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute,

(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 Judge Mitchell’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,

(5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied,

(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 Report 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 Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 17) as the findings of this Court. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions (Docket Nos. 2, 4) are DENIED. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 9th day of December, 2025.

JHREMYD. KERN DLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE