Kopatz v. McMullen et al

Filing 32

MEMORANDUM ORDER overruling objections and adopting the magistrate judge's 27 Report and Recommendation. Order denying 29 Motion for Extension of Time to File. The Clerk of Court is instructed to modify the entry for docket entry no. 30 as Plaintiff's objections to the report and recommendations of Magistrate Judge. Signed by District Judge Thad Heartfield on 3/13/2018. (bjc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
BRIAN KOPATZ

§

VS.

§

ASSISTANT WARDEN, VIRGIL
MCMULLEN, et al.,

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-171

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND
ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, Brian Kopatz, an inmate formerly confined at the Mark Stiles Unit with the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several defendants.
The court 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.
The Magistrate Judge recommends plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction/Motion for
Evidentiary Hearing (docket entry nos. 11 & 12) be denied. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension
of Time to File Objections on January 17, 2018 (docket entry no. 29) and then his Objections on
January 29, 2018 (docket entry no. 30).1 Having received plaintiff’s objections to the Report and
Recommendation, this requires a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and
applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).
After careful consideration, the court finds plaintiff’s objections lacking in merit. Plaintiff
is no longer incarcerated at the Mark Stiles Unit. Any request for injunctive relief as to defendants
at the Mark Stiles Unit is now moot. See Tuft v. Texas, 410 F. App’x 770 (5th Cir. 2011) (citing
Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir. 2001)). Similarly, plaintiff’s request for an
evidentiary is unwarranted and denied.

1
The Clerk of Court docketed plaintiff’s objections as a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. However, the
motion states that it is in response to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation filed on January 3, 2018 as docket entry
no. 27. The motion should be entitled Objections to the Report and Recommendation.

ORDER
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (docket entry no. 29) is DENIED as
MOOT. The Clerk of Court is instructed to modify the entry for docket entry no. 30 as Plaintiff’s
Objections to the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge. It is further ORDERED that
plaintiff’s objections 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.
SIGNED this the 13 day of March, 2018.

____________________________
Thad Heartfield
United States District Judge

2