From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kopatz v. Assistant Warden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION
Mar 13, 2018
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-171 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2018)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-171

03-13-2018

BRIAN KOPATZ v. ASSISTANT WARDEN, VIRGIL MCMULLEN, et al.


MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, Brian Kopatz, an inmate formerly confined at the Mark Stiles Unit with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several defendants.

The court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The Magistrate Judge recommends plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction/Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (docket entry nos. 11 & 12) be denied. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections on January 17, 2018 (docket entry no. 29) and then his Objections on January 29, 2018 (docket entry no. 30). Having received plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendation, this requires a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).

The Clerk of Court docketed plaintiff's objections as a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. However, the motion states that it is in response to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation filed on January 3, 2018 as docket entry no. 27. The motion should be entitled Objections to the Report and Recommendation. --------

After careful consideration, the court finds plaintiff's objections lacking in merit. Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at the Mark Stiles Unit. Any request for injunctive relief as to defendants at the Mark Stiles Unit is now moot. See Tuft v. Texas, 410 F. App'x 770 (5th Cir. 2011) (citing Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir. 2001)). Similarly, plaintiff's request for an evidentiary is unwarranted and denied.

ORDER

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (docket entry no. 29) is DENIED as MOOT. The Clerk of Court is instructed to modify the entry for docket entry no. 30 as Plaintiff's Objections to the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge. It is further ORDERED that plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and the report of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED.

SIGNED this the 13 day of March, 2018.

/s/_________

Thad Heartfield

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Kopatz v. Assistant Warden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION
Mar 13, 2018
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-171 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2018)
Case details for

Kopatz v. Assistant Warden

Case Details

Full title:BRIAN KOPATZ v. ASSISTANT WARDEN, VIRGIL MCMULLEN, et al.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION

Date published: Mar 13, 2018

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-171 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2018)