Opinion
Civil Action 3:22-CV-0605-C
04-19-2022
SHEDRICK THORNTON, Plaintiff, v. DR. MICHAEL PITTMAN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
SAM R. CUMMINGS SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge therein advising the Court that Plaintiffs request for declaratory and injunctive relief should be denied.
Plaintiff has filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation.
The Court conducts a de novo review of those portions of the Magistrate Judge's report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which a timely objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Portions of the report or proposed findings or recommendations that are not the subject of a timely objection will be accepted by the Court unless they are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989).
After due consideration and having conducted a de novo review, the Court finds that Plaintiffs objections should be OVERRULED. The Court has further conducted an independent review ol the Magistrate Judge's findings and conclusions and finds no error. It is therefore ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation are hereby ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court. For the reasons stated therein, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiffs request for declaratory and injunctive relief-construed as a request for preliminary injunctive relief or a temporary restraining order-be DENIED.
SO ORDERED.