Edwards v. Livingston et al

Filing 36

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, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION ARTAVIAS EDWARDS § v. § 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- 1 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 DENIED. So Ordered and Signed Jan 9, 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?