Spivey v. Wilson et al

Filing 126

ORDER ADOPTING 89 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, Denying 28 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Robert Daniel Spivey.. Signed by District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III on 7/30/2018. (sm, )

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

ROBERT DANIEL SPIVEY

§

v.

§

JOSEPH WILSON, ET AL.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17cv94

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Robert Daniel Spivey, an inmate of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Institutional Division proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983
complaining of alleged violations of his constitutional rights during his confinement of the Telford
Unit.

This Court referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge Caroline M. Craven

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3).
Plaintiff filed a motion for temporary restraining order concerning the conditions of
confinement at the Eastham Unit, where he was then housed (Docket No. 28). Since filing
this motion, Plaintiff has been transferred and is now at the McConnell Unit. The Magistrate
Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 89) recommending the motion be
denied as moot.

Plaintiff received a copy of this Report on March 22, 2018 but filed no

objections. Accordingly, he is barred from de novo review by the District Judge of those findings,
conclusions and recommendations and, except on 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.
Having reviewed the pleadings and the Report and Recommendation, the Court agrees with
the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief regarding the conditions of

.
confinement at the Eastham Unit are now moot. It is accordingly
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate
Judge on Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Docket No. 89) is ADOPTED
as the opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED the Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order (Docket No. 28) is
DENIED.
SIGNED this 30th day of July, 2018.

____________________________________
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2