Chaisson v. Mark W. Michael's Unit Kitchen Food Service Management Staff for Ad Seg Administration et al
MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. It is ordered that the Report of the Magistrate Judge # 41 is adopted as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ordered that the Plaintiff's amended motion for injunctive relief # 36 is denied. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 10/11/17. (mrp, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MICHAEL UNIT FOOD SERVICE
STAFF, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:17cv14
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
The Plaintiff Queronde Chaisson, 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.
Chaisson has filed a motion for injunctive relief, which was denied on August 29, 2017.
While this motion was pending, Chaisson filed an amended motion for injunctive relief on August
24, 2017. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the amended motion for
injunctive relief be denied, and Chaisson received a copy of this Report on September 11, 2017. He
did not file timely objections to this Report; 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. 41) is ADOPTED as the
opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s amended motion for injunctive relief (docket no. 36) is
So Ordered and Signed
Oct 11, 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?