Morgan v. Denison Police Department et al

Filing 38

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 14 Motion for TRO, Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by David Lamont Morgan. ORDERED that Plaintiff's second motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (docket entry #14) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 7/30/2014. (kls, )

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

DAVID LAMONT MORGAN

'

VS.

'

DENISON POLICE DEPT., ET AL.

'

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:14cv151

ORDER
Plaintiff David Lamont Morgan, previously a prisoner in the custody of the Denison Police
Department, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that he was
assaulted by Officer Douglas on July 6, 2012. The complaint was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Amos L. Mazzant, who issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that
Plaintiff’s second motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction should be
denied. Plaintiff has filed objections.
The prerequisites for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction are:
(1) substantial likelihood that the moving party will prevail on the merits of the underlying suit,
(2) a substantial threat that the moving party will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not
granted, (3) that the threatened injury to the movant outweighs the threatened harm the injunction
may do to the nonmovant, and (4) that granting the preliminary injunction and/or temporary
restraining order will not disserve the public interest. Libertarian Party of Texas v. Fainter, 741
F.d 2d 728, 729 (5th Cir. 1984). Since a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary
injunction are extraordinary, and perhaps drastic remedies, they are not granted unless the movant
1

clearly carries the onerous burden of persuasion as to all the elements. United States v. Jefferson
County, 720 F.2d 1511, 1519 (5th Cir. 1983). In his objections, Plaintiff cites the four prongs and
asserts that he will prevail on the merits of his lawsuit, but he did not clearly prove any of the four
prerequisites for obtaining a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction. He has
not shown that he is entitled to have the motion granted.
The Report of the Magistrate Judge, which contains his proposed findings of fact and
recommendations for the disposition of such action, has been presented for consideration, and
having made a de novo review of the objections raised by Plaintiff to the Report, the court is of the
opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and Plaintiff’s
objections are without merit. It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s second motion for a temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction (docket entry #14) is DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 30 day of July, 2014.

___________________________________
Ron Clark, United States District Judge

2