Hughes v. Collier

Full title: JAMES ROBERT HUGHES v. BRIAN COLLIER, ET AL.

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Lufkin Division

Date published: Jul 13, 2023

Civil Action 9:22-cv-139 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 13, 2023)

Opinion

Civil Action 9:22-cv-139

07-13-2023

JAMES ROBERT HUGHES v. BRIAN COLLIER, ET AL.

CHRISTINE L STETSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CHRISTINE L STETSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

James Robert Hughes, an inmate confined within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit. This matter was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 for conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.

Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (doc. #5). At the time Plaintiff filed his Complaint and his Motion, he was incarcerated at the Wainwright Unit. He subsequently notified the court that he has been transferred to the Ferguson Unit. (Doc. # 10.)

A transfer to another correctional facility renders a claim for injunctive relief based on conditions at a litigant's former correctional facility moot. Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir. 2001). As Plaintiff has been transferred since he filed his Motion, his request for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order should be denied as moot.

Recommendation

Plaintiff's motion requesting a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order should be denied as moot.

Objections

Within 14 days after receipt of the magistrate judge's report, any party may serve and file written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C).

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations contained herein within 14 days after service shall bar an aggrieved party from de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1429 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72.