Henderson v. Davis et al

Filing 24

ORDER adopting 18 Report and Recommendation. Ordered that Plaintiff's 9 Motion for TRO is denied. Signed by District Judge Ron Clark on 3/12/2018. (bjc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
DERRICK D. HENDERSON, #1422462

§

VS.

§

LORIE DAVIS, ET AL.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:17cv320

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Derrick D. Henderson (Henderson), an inmate confined at the Coffield Unit within
the Texas Department of Criminal Justice proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging purported violations of his constitutional rights. He names several
prison officials as Defendants. The complaint was referred for findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and recommendations for the disposition of the case.

This present order concerns only

Henderson’s motion for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, (Dkt. #9), and
the Magistrate Judge’s Report recommending disposition for that motion, (Dkt. #18).
After reviewing Plaintiff’s motion, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending
that Henderson’s motion for a preliminary injunction be denied. The Magistrate Judge found that
he did not satisfy the elements required for a preliminary injunction. A copy of this Report was
sent to Henderson at his address; return receipt requested. The docket shows that Henderson
received the Report on February 13, 2018. However, no objections have been received to date.
Accordingly, Henderson 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 that 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.”). Accordingly it is
ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge, (Dkt. #18), is ADOPTED. Further,
it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction/temporary restraining
order, (Dkt. #9), is DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 12 day of March, 2018.

___________________________________
Ron Clark, United States District Judge

2