Adams v. Franklin et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM ORDER adopting 10 Report and Recommendation. Ordered that Plaintiff's 7 Motion for TRO is denied. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 1/25/2017. (bjc, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
CLARENCE DOUGLAS ADAMS

§

v.

§

MARY FRANKLIN, ET AL.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16cv238

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
The Plaintiff Clarence Adams, 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.
Adams has filed a motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction asking
that the prison officials be enjoined from threatening him, writing him disciplinary cases for helping
other inmates, and denying him legal supplies. He also asked that he not be moved from the trusty
camp into the building and that officers stop searching his legal property and losing his court papers.
After review of the motion, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that Adams’
motion for injunctive relief be denied. Adams 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. 10) is ADOPTED as the
opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction (docket no. 7) is DENIED.

So Ordered and Signed
Jan 25, 2017

2