Tijerina v. Stanley et al

Filing 45

MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING 41 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS and Denying 21 MOTION for injunctive relief order filed by David Tijerina.. Signed by Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III on 9/28/2017. (sm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
DAVID TIJERINA

§

v.

§

DR. REGINALDO STANLEY, ET AL.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16cv102

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiff David Tijerina, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 complaining of alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. This Court referred the
matter 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.
Plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive relief asking the Court to order he receive medical
treatment and medication which was prescribed for him at Wadley Regional Medical Center in
Texarkana. Docket No. 21. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending the requested
injunctive relief be denied. Docket No. 41. Plaintiff received a copy of this Report on August 22,
2017 but filed no objections. Accordingly, he is barred from de novo review by the District Judge
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 district court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this case and the Report of the Magistrate Judge
and has determined the Report of the Magistrate Judge 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. 41) is ADOPTED as the
opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED the Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Docket No. 21) is DENIED.
SIGNED this 28th day of September, 2017.

____________________________________
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2