Williams v. Catoe et al

Filing 168

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 108 Report and Recommendations of the United Stated Magistrate Judge. ORDERED that the Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining (Docket No. 91) be DENIED. Signed by District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle on 2/26/2020. (gsg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
ELLIOTT WILLIAMS, #481914,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY CATOE, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 6:17-CV-627-JDK-KNM

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636.

On August 15, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation

(Docket No. 108), recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and
temporary restraining order (Docket No. 91) be denied.
This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a
party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire record and makes an
independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430
(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
(extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). Here, Plaintiff did not file
objections in the prescribed period. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings
for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews her legal conclusions to determine whether they
are contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied,
492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the
standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”).

Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court finds no
clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to law. The Court therefore adopts
the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 108) as the
findings of this Court.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report (Docket No. 108)
be ADOPTED and that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining
(Docket No. 91) be DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 26th day of February, 2020.

___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE