Parrott Jr. v. Livingston et al

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM ORDER adopting 22 Report and Recommendation. Order denying 14 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and 20 Motion to Compel Administrative Compliance. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 8/23/16. (tkd, )

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

§

v.

§

BRAD LIVINGSTON, ET AL.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:15cv866

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND DENYING MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
The Plaintiff Jimmie Parrott, proceeding pro se, 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.
Parrott filed a motion for injunctive relief asking that the Court order he receive the medical
treatment he desired and a separate motion asking for “administrative compliance,” which sought
essentially the same relief. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the motions
be denied. Parrott received a copy of this Report 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 unobjectedto factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass v.
United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the Report of the Magistrate Judge.
Upon such review, the Court has determined that 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

1

(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 that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (docket no. 22) is ADOPTED as the
opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s motions for a preliminary injunction (docket no. 14) and
motion to compel administrative compliance (docket no. 20) are DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 23 day of August, 2016.

___________________________________
Ron Clark, United States District Judge

2