Behling v. Stevens et al

Filing 39

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 31 Report and Recommendations and DENYING 30 Motion for Protective Order filed by Scott T Behling. Signed by District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle on 6/4/2021. (efarris, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
SCOTT T. BEHLING, #664060,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN STEVENS, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 6:20-cv-546-JDK-JDL

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Scott T. Behling, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice inmate
proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love for findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition.

Before the Court is

Plaintiff’s motion for protective order. Docket No. 30.
On April 7, 2021, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that Plaintiff’s
motion for protective order—construed as a motion for a preliminary injunction and
temporary restraining order—be denied. Docket No. 31. Judge Love found that
Plaintiff failed to show entitlement to an injunction or restraining order under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. A copy of this Report was sent to Plaintiff, and
Plaintiff received it on April 20, 2021. Docket No. 34.
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

1

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superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to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 object in the prescribed period. The Court therefore
reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and
reviews his 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 the record in this case,
the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to
law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the
United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 31) as the findings of this Court and
DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order (Docket No. 30).
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 4th day of June, 2021.

___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2