Back v. TDCJ-CID et al

Filing 29

MEMORANDUM ORDER adopting 12 Report and Recommendation. Ordered that the Plaintiff's 4 motion for injunctive relief is denied. Ordered that the Plaintiff's 5 motion to incorporate additional facts into his request for injunctive relief is granted. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 1/25/2017. (bjc, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
ROBERT BACK

§

v.

§

TDCJ-CID, ET AL.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16cv236

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
The Plaintiff Robert Back, 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.
Back filed a motion for injunctive relief asking that he be provided with proper medical
bracing, including being taken to an outside clinic if necessary. He also asked to be taken into
federal custody if the Court determined that was in his best interests.
After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that
Back’s motion for injunctive relief be denied. Back 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 unobjected-to proposed 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).

1

The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the Report of the Magistrate Judge.
Upon such review, the Court has determined 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
(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. 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 DENIED. It
is further
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s motion to incorporate additional facts into his request for
injunctive relief (docket no. 5) is GRANTED.

So Ordered and Signed
Jan 25, 2017

2