Warfield v. Livingston

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 11 Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge, and Order DENYING 3 Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Mark Adrian Warfield. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 10/2/2014. (gsg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
MARK WARFIELD

§

v.

§

BRAD LIVINGSTON

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:14cv542

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
The Plaintiff Mark Warfield, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C.
§1983 complaining of alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights in that he is being required
to comply with Texas prison grooming standards, allegedly in violation of his religious beliefs.
Warfield’s original complaint asks that the Court enjoin the Texas prison officials from
punishing him for exercising his religious beliefs and not shaving his face or cutting his hair, and
allowing him to maintain a clean and well-kept beard of not more than one inch in length. He also
asks that all previous disciplinary sanctions imposed upon him for violations of grooming standards
be set aside and that he be released from segregation into the general population.
Together with his complaint, Warfield filed a motion for an “emergency preliminary
injunction.” Like his original complaint, this motion asks that the prison officials be enjoined from
punishing him for violating grooming standards and that he be allowed to maintain a one inch beard.
After consideration, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that Warfield’s
motion for injunctive relief be denied. Warfield received a copy of this Report on August 22, 2014,
but filed no objections thereto; 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 factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted

1

by the district court. Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th
Cir. 1996) (en banc).
.

The Court has carefully reviewed the Plaintiff’s motion and the Report of the Magistrate

Judge. Upon such review, the Court has concluded that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is
correct. It is accordingly
ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (docket no. 11) is hereby ADOPTED
as the opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (docket no. 3) is hereby
DENIED.
SIGNED this 2nd day of October, 2014.

____________________________________
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2