Martinez v. Richardson et al

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Plaintiff's objections are overruled and the Report of the Magistrate Judge 12 is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief 4 is hereby DENIED. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 03/08/16. (mll, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
JIMMY MARTINEZ

§

v.

§

JEFFREY RICHARDSON, ET AL.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:15cv732

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
The Plaintiff Jimmy Martinez, an inmate of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Correctional Institutions Division proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C.
§1983 complaining of alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. This Court ordered that the
matter 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.
Martinez filed a motion asking that the Court issue an injunction permitting him to grow a
beard. The magistrate judge recommended that the motion be denied, and Martinez has filed
objections speculating that he may not be allowed to grow a Satanic goatee under the new TDCJ
regulations permitting the growing of beards.
No case in any jurisdiction, state or federal, has addressed the issue of Satanic goatees.
Martinez offers nothing beyond his own conclusory allegations to show that a goatee would not be
allowed or that prohibiting the growing of a goatee places a substantial burden upon the exercise of
his religion, much less that he has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his claim in
this regard. His motion for injunctive relief is without merit.

1

The Court has conducted a careful de novo review of those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s
proposed findings and recommendations to which the Plaintiff objected. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)
(district judge shall “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”) Upon such de novo review,
.

the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct and the Plaintiff’s
objections are without merit. It is accordingly
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s objections are overruled and the Report of the Magistrate
Judge (docket no. 12) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (docket no. 4) is hereby
DENIED. The denial of this motion shall not prevent the Plaintiff from pursuing his claims in the
underlying lawsuit, including his claim regarding the growing of his beard.
SIGNED this 8th day of March, 2016.

____________________________________
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2