Whitlock v. Stephens et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 13 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 02/26/2015. (nkl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TARRANCE DARON WHITLOCK
WILLIAM STEPHENS, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14cv94
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
The Plaintiff Tarrance Whitlock, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42
U.S.C. §1983 complaining of alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. This Court ordered
that the matter be referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)
and (3) and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to
United States Magistrate Judges.
Whitlock filed a motion for injunctive relief asking that the defendants or their agents be
prohibited from retaliating against him and that he be allowed to use the restroom during two-hour
law library sessions. The magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the motion be denied.
Whitlock has filed objections to the report which largely re-state the allegations of his
motion. He contends the denial of restroom privileges during a law library session is an Eighth
Amendment violation, despite the fact that this Court has previously rejected the same allegation.
Kohlberg v. Pille, civil action no. 1:12cv280, 2012 WL 6967234 (E.D.Tex., December 14, 2012),
Report adopted at 2013 WL 395095 (E.D.Tex., January 31, 2013). He speculates that without
injunctive relief, he will continue to receive false disciplinary cases, which he characterizes as
“irreparable harm.” The threat of abstract injury is not enough; the Fifth Circuit has held that
injunctive relief is inappropriate when sought to prevent injury that is speculative at best. Kirby v.
Johnson, 243 F.App’x 877, 2007 WL 2228616 (5th Cir., August 3, 2007), citing Carter v. Orleans
Parish Public Schools, 725 F.2d 261, 263 (5th Cir. 1984). Nor has Whitlock shown than the granting
of injunctive relief, representing a significant level of federal court interference with the operations
of a state agency, would not dis-serve the public interest. His objections are without merit.
The Court has conducted a careful de novo review of those portions of the magistrate judge’s
proposed findings and recommendations to which the Plaintiff objected. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)
(district judge shall “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”) Upon such de novo review,
the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct and the Plaintiff’s
objections are without merit. It is accordingly
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s objections are overruled and the Report of the Magistrate
Judge (docket no. 13) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (docket no. 5) is hereby
SIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 26th day of February, 2015.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?