Karl v. Jenkins

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM ORDER adopting 13 Report and Recommendation. Ordered that the Plaintiff's 1 motion for injunctive relief is denied. Ordered that the above-styled civil action is dismissed with prejudice for purposes of proceed IFP for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Ordered that any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action are hereby denied. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 8/9/2017. (bjc, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
GARY LYNN KARL SR.

§

v.

§

BONNIE JENKINS

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16cv1342

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff Gary Karl, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C.
§1983 in the form of a motion for injunctive relief, seeking an injunction against a Texas prison
officer named Bonnie Jenkins. This Court referred the matter 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.
Karl’s lawsuit is styled as a motion for an “Order to Show Cause for a Preliminary Injunction
and a Temporary Restraining Order.” He states that he is in fear for his life because Jenkins has
repeatedly threatened him. She has keys to inmates’ hospital rooms and can come into Karl’s room
at night when he is asleep. He asked for an injunction directing that Jenkins stay 100 yards away
from him.
The Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings and issued a Report stating that a request for
injunctive relief is not considered an independent cause of action, but a remedy sought to redress
the wrongs alleged in the underlying substantive claims. Even if Karl’s motion for injunctive relief
were treated as an independent cause of action, the Magistrate Judge determined that Karl failed to
meet the standards for injunctive relief. The Magistrate Judge therefore recommended that Karl’s
motion for injunctive relief be denied and the lawsuit be dismissed.

1

A copy of this Report was sent to Karl at his last known address, return receipt requested,
but was returned as undeliverable. No objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report have been
received; accordingly, Karl 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. 13) is ADOPTED as the
opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (docket no. 1) is DENIED. It
is further
ORDERED that the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for
purposes of proceeding in forma pauperis for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. It is further
ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action are hereby
DENIED.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 9 day of August, 2017.

___________________________________
Ron Clark, United States District Judge

2