Davis v. Thaler et al

Filing 53

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 29 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(lsmith, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
TEDDY NORRIS DAVIS, et al,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
RICK THALER, et al,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. C-12-166
§
§
§
§

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DENY PLAINTIFF DAVIS’ MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Davis’ “Motion Requesting Temporary
Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction Relief” (D.E. 29). On September 17, 2012,
United States Magistrate Judge B. Janice Ellington issued a Memorandum and
Recommendation (D.E. 41), recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion be denied. Plaintiffs
Davis and Goodman filed their Objections (D.E. 48) on October 3, 2012.
Plaintiffs, in their Objections, repeat their argument that they are being denied law
library time to confer together in violation of ATC-050, which outlines the prison policy
for law library usage for joint sessions. They aver generally that the Memorandum and
Recommendation reaches the wrong conclusion.
Plaintiffs have not identified any defect in the Magistrate Judge’s outline of the
law applicable to motions for injunctive relief. Neither have they demonstrated that they
have satisfied their burden of proof on any of the four elements governing the issuance of
injunctive relief. In fact, they have not even demonstrated (1) that they have complied
1/2

with the ATC-050 policy regarding the manner in which such joint sessions must be
requested or (2) that specific requests that have been submitted have actually been
denied.
While they outline the sessions that have been granted and have identified which
ones have included joint conferences, they have not shown how those sessions have been
inadequate or that they are being denied the ability to prepare for a certain deadline.
Injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy and Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that
they are entitled to such relief. Plaintiffs’ Objections are OVERRULED.
Having reviewed the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations
set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation, as well as
Plaintiffs’ Objections, and all other relevant documents in the record, and having made a
de novo disposition of the portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and
Recommendation

to

which

objections

were

specifically

directed,

the

Court

OVERRULES Plaintiffs’ Objections and ADOPTS as its own the findings and
conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the “Motion Requesting Temporary
Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction Relief” (D.E. 29). is DENIED.
ORDERED this 16th day of October, 2012.

___________________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2