Mitchell v. Petty et al

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 10 Report and Recommendations, and denying 7 Motion for Transfer to Safekeeping, construed as a motion for injunctive relief, filed by Douglas E Mitchell. Signed by District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle on 6/18/2019. (mjc, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
DOUGLAS E. MITCHELL,
Plaintiff,

§
§
§
§
§
§
§

v.
S. PETTY, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 6:19-CV-5-JDK-JDL

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiff Douglas Mitchell filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
complaining of alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. Docket No. 1. 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. Docket No. 2.
Mitchell later filed a motion asking to be transferred to safekeeping. Docket No. 7. The
Magistrate Judge properly construed the motion as a request for injunctive relief and issued a
Report recommending that the motion be denied. Docket No. 10. The Magistrate Judge concluded
that Mitchell offered nothing to suggest a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his
claims nor that he faced a substantial threat of irreparable injury. Id. In addition, the Magistrate
Judge stated that Mitchell failed to show that his requested injunction would not disserve the public
interest. See Robinson v. Hunt County, Texas, 921 F.3d 440, 451 (5th Cir. 2019) (setting out the
elements for preliminary injunctive relief).
Mitchell received a copy of this Report on or before May 23, 2019, but filed no objections.
See Docket No. 11.

1

Upon reviewing the pleadings in this cause and the Report of the Magistrate Judge, 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 (1989) (holding that in cases in
which no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly
erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”); see also Douglass v. United Services
Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). It is accordingly:
ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 10) is ADOPTED as the
opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s motion for transfer to safekeeping, construed as a motion
for injunctive relief (Docket No. 7), is DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 18th day of June, 2019.

___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2