Durham v. Doe 1 et al

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that the 9 Motion for Preliminary Injunction/TRO filed by William Earl Durham be denied. Signed by Judge Marcia A. Crone on 8/6/14. (mrp, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WILLIAM EARL DURHAM,
Plaintiff,
versus
JANE DOE, et al.,
Defendants.

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-369

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff William Earl Durham, an inmate confined at the Stevenson Unit of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed this
civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court previously referred this matter to the
Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration
pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court.
Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining
order. The magistrate judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge concerning the motion. The magistrate judge recommends the motion be denied.
The court has received the Report and Recommendation, along with the record, pleadings,
and all available evidence. Plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation. The court must therefore conduct a de novo review of the objections in relation
to the pleadings and the applicable law.
Plaintiff seeks an order directing the defendants to provide him with certain documents and
information. He also asks the court to direct the defendants not to alter, destroy or remove certain
documents. The magistrate judge recommended the motion be denied because plaintiff had not
demonstrated he faced a substantial risk of serious harm if relief was not granted. With respect
to the request that the defendants be directed not to alter, destroy or remove certain documents,
the magistrate judge noted plaintiff had stated no facts indicating the defendants intended to take

such action. In his objections, plaintiff states that during his criminal trial, the custodian of
records stated that 20 pages were missing from a report. He states the report had been referenced
by one of the defendants in 2011. However, while he states that a defendant referenced the report
three years ago, plaintiff has not demonstrated the defendant removed pages from the report or that
any of the defendants have threatened to destroy or remove documents. As a result, the magistrate
judge correctly concluded plaintiff has not demonstrated he faces a substantial risk of serious harm
if relief is not granted.
ORDER
Accordingly, the objections filed by plaintiff are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and
conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and the report of the magistrate judge is
ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order is
DENIED.
.
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 7th day of September, 2004.

SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 6th day of August, 2014.

________________________________________
MARCIA A. CRONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2