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, )

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?