Medlock v. Hutchinson et al

Filing 28

ORDER ADOPTING 20 AND RECOMMENDATIONS and FURTHER ORDERED that 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment and injunctive relief is DENIED filed by Victor Medlock, Jr.. Signed by District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III on 3/12/2018. (sm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
VICTOR MEDLOCK JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ASA HUTCHINSON ET AL.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-CV-00108-RWS

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The Plaintiff Victor Medlock, a former inmate of the Bowie County Correctional Center
in Texarkana, Texas, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaining of alleged
violations of his constitutional rights. This Court ordered that the case 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.
Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment and injunctive relief, asking the Court to
order his privileges be restored and for the Defendants to refrain from giving him disciplinary
cases due to his fear of not being protected and his refusal to accept placement in general
population. Docket No. 13. After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
recommending Plaintiff’s motion be denied. Docket No. 20. The Magistrate Judge reasoned
that Plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiff did not establish there were
no disputed issues of fact and that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. at 2. The
Magistrate Judge also noted that Plaintiff had been transferred to custody in Arkansas and was
no longer in confinement in Bowie County, rendering his request for injunctive relief regarding

his conditions of confinement in Bowie County moot. Id. at 3 (citing Herman v. Holiday, 238
F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir. 2001)).
Plaintiff received a copy of the Magistrate Judge’s Report on or before February 7, 2018.
Docket No. 23. No objections were filed. In the absence of objections, the Court reviews the
Magistrate Judge’s Report for clear error. Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association,
79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); see United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221
(5th Cir. 1989) (explaining that the clear error standard is “appropriate only where there has been

.
no objection to the magistrate’s ruling”). Having reviewed the Report and record, the Court
agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and injunctive
relief should be denied. It is accordingly
ORDERED the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 20) is ADOPTED as the
opinion of the Court. It is further
ORDERED the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and injunctive relief in the
form of a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction (Docket No. 13) is DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 12th day of March, 2018.

____________________________________
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2