Muldrow v. Page et al

Filing 23

ORDER ADOPTING 13 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS and 7 motion for injunctive relief is hereby Denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Caroline Craven on 7/26/2016. (sm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
ELBERT MULDROW

§

v.

§

BOB PAGE, ET AL.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15cv167

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
The Plaintiff Elbert Muldrow, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42
U.S.C. §1983 complaining of alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. On June 22, 2016,
the parties consented to allow the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge to enter final
judgment in the proceeding, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §636(c).
Plaintiff’s motion seeks injunctive relief because he is being denied visitation at the Bowie
County Jail. He did not set out the parameters of the injunction he wishes the Court to issue, nor did
he show a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits of his claims or a substantial likelihood
of irreparable injury if the requested injunctive relief is not granted. Plaintiff further did not allege
nor show granting the requested relief would not dis-serve the public interest.
After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report on June 3, 2016, prior
to the consent of the parties, recommending the Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be denied.
Plaintiff received a copy of this Report on June 7, 2016, but filed no objections thereto; accordingly,
he is barred from de novo review of those findings, conclusions, and recommendations and, except
upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to proposed factual findings
and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the Court. Douglass v. United Services Automobile
Association, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

1

.

The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the previously issued Report. Upon
such review, the Court has determined that the Report is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864
F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918, 109 S.Ct. 3243 (1989) (where no objections
to a magistrate judge’s report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of
discretion and contrary to law.”) It is accordingly
ORDERED the Report of the Magistrate Judge (docket no. 17) is ADOPTED as the opinion
of the Court. It is further
ORDERED the Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (docket no. 7) is hereby DENIED.
SIGNED this 26th day of July, 2016.

____________________________________
CAROLINE M. CRAVEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2