Edwards v. Livingston et al
ORDER adopting 27 Report and Recommendation. Ordered that the Plaintiff's 6 , 21 and 26 Motions for injunctive relief are denied. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 1/9/2017. (bjc, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BRAD LIVINGSTON, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16cv242
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
The Plaintiff Artavias Edwards, 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.
Edwards has filed three motions seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary
injunction, complaining that false disciplinary cases have been filed against him, his legal mail has
been opened outside of his presence, he has been threatened and harassed, he was assaulted by an
officer, the Office of the Inspector General refuses to conduct an investigation, he has been denied
paper and envelopes for over three weeks, and he has been moved to a dangerous housing area.
After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that
Edwards’ motions for injunctive relief be denied. A copy of this Report was sent to Edwards at his
last known address, return receipt requested, but no objections have been received; 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).
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. 27) is ADOPTED as the
opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (docket no.’s 6, 21, and 26) are
So Ordered and Signed
Jan 9, 2017
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?