Thornton v. Dallas ISD et al

Filing 13

Order Accepting 10 Findings and Recommendations and Denying 12 Motion for Injunction and Motion for Reconsideration. After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the issued Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation (� 39;FCR') and the subsequent filing of Plaintiff (doc. 12), in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), the Court finds that the FCR is correct. Because Plaintiff has asserted no specific objection to the FCR and the Court cannot reasonably construe the subsequent filing of Plaintiff as stating any specific objection, the Court has reviewed the FCR for clear error and is satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. The Court hereby accep ts the FCR as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court. It further finds no legitimate basis for issuing an injunction or to reconsider the denial of appointment of counsel. Accordingly, it DENIES the Motion for Injunction and Motion for Reconsideration (doc. 12). And it summarily DISMISSES this action with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). (Ordered by Judge Jorge A Solis on 1/6/2014) (chmb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
WENDELL JAMES THORNTON,
Plaintiff,
V.
DALLAS ISD, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

NO. 13-CV-3012-P

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On August 28, 2013, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued Findings, Conclusions, and
Recommendation (“FCR”) in which he recommended that the Court summarily dismiss Plaintiff’s
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The next day, the Magistrate Judge denied a motion
for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff has filed no specific objection to the FCR. But, on September
11, 2013, Plaintiff filed a document that has been docketed as a Motion for Injunction and a Motion
for Reconsideration (doc. 12). He therein states that he “is filing an injunction” and asks the Court
to reconsider the denial of appointment of counsel.
After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the issued FCR and the
subsequent filing of Plaintiff, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3),
the Court finds that the FCR is correct. Because Plaintiff has asserted no specific objection to the
FCR and the Court cannot reasonably construe the subsequent filing of Plaintiff as stating any
specific objection, the Court has reviewed the FCR for clear error and is satisfied that there is no
clear error on the face of the record. The Court hereby accepts the FCR as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court. It further finds no legitimate basis for issuing an injunction or to reconsider the

denial of appointment of counsel. Accordingly, it DENIES the Motion for Injunction and Motion
for Reconsideration (doc. 12). And it summarily DISMISSES this action with prejudice pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
SO ORDERED this 6th day of January, 2014.

_________________________________
JORGE A. SOLIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2