Opinion
Civil Action 5:22cv114
01-26-2024
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
J. BOONE BAXTER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The Plaintiff Christopher Deshazo, proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit complaining of alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. The case has been referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and (3) and Local Rule CV-72 of the Local Rules of Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive relief asking that he be removed from the Bowie County Correctional Center, saying that the correctional center repeatedly fails inspection and that it is unsuitable for holding animals, let alone inmates and detainees. Dkt. No. 26. Since the filing of the motion, Plaintiff has been transferred to the Cole Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, thus rendering his request for a transfer moot. Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir. 2001); Edwards v. Johnson, 209 F.3d 772, 776 (5th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for an injunction ordering his transfer should be denied.
Plaintiff filed a notice with the Court on January 5, 2024, and the return address was for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Dkt. No. 40.
RECOMMENDATION
It is accordingly recommended that the Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief (Dkt. No. 26) be denied as moot.
A copy of these findings, conclusions and recommendations shall be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions, and recommendations must file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy.
In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection which merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the Magistrate Judge is not specific, and the district court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See Battle v. United States Parole Commission, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).
Failure to file specific written objections will bar the objecting party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge which are accepted and adopted by the district court except upon grounds of plain error. Duarte v. City of Lewisville, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017).
SIGNED.