Hennington v. Edwards

Filing 11

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Report and Recommendation 8 is ADOPTED. The motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order 7 is DENIED. Plaintiff's request for a hearing pertaining to his request for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle on 11/09/20. (mll, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION

CLIFTON B. HENNINGTON, #2069964

§

VS.

§

FREDRIC EDWARDS

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20cv523

ORDER DENYING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
This action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love, who issued a
Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 8) concluding that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary
injunction and temporary restraining order (Docket No. 7) should be denied.
objections.

Plaintiff has filed

Docket No. 10.

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1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)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).
Plaintiff’s objections are not specific objections to the Report. Plaintiff argues that he
avoids the defendant and other prison officials because of his emotional and mental “actual injury”
and that should be sufficient to grant him a temporary restraining order.

Docket No. 10, p. 4.

Frivolous, conclusory, or general objections need not be considered by the district court.

See

Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds
1

by Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); see also ValezPedro v. Thermo King De Puerto Rico, Inc., 465 F.3d 31, 32 (1st Cir. 2006) (explaining that an
objecting party must put forth more than “[c]onclusory allegations that do not direct the
reviewing court to the issues in controversy”).
The Court has conducted a careful de novo review of the record and the Magistrate Judge’s
proposed findings and recommendations. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (explaining the district judge
shall “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings
or recommendations to which objection is made”). Having reviewed the Report and Plaintiff’s
objections, the Court has determined that the Report is correct, and the objections are without
merit. It is accordingly
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 8) is ADOPTED. It is
further
ORDERED that the motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order
(Docket No. 7) is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request for a hearing pertaining to his request for a
preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order is DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 9th

day of November, 2020.

___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2