Opinion
Civil Action 1:20-cv-193
06-01-2023
CURTIS JAMES MCGUIRE v. MAJOR WOODWARD D rono
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHRISTINE L. STETSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Curtis James McGuire, an inmate confined within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights lawsuit against Major Woodward, Grievance Officer Thomas and Medical Provider Davis. This matter was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.
Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction. (Doc. #9.) Plaintiff asserts that an officer at the Scott Unit is preventing him from receiving medical care. Plaintiff seeks an injunction directing officials to provide him with medical care.
Discussion
This lawsuit involves actions that occurred at the Stiles Unit, where Defendants are employed. In contrast, Plaintiff's motion involves conditions at the Scott Unit. There is no indication that any Defendant is employed at the Scott Unit. It therefore does not appear any of the named Defendants could provide Plaintiff with the relief sought. A plaintiff does not have standing to pursue injunctive relief when the named defendants do not have the authority to provide the relief sought. McCreary v. Richardson, 738 F.3d 651, 655 (5th Cir. 2013). As Plaintiff does not assert Defendants are employed at the Scott Unit, they cannot provide him with the relief requested in his motion. His motion should therefore be denied.
Recommendation
The motion requesting a preliminary injunction should be denied.
Objections
Objections must be (1) specific, (2) in writing, and (3) served and filed within ten days after being served with a copy of this report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72(b).
Failure to object bars a party from (1) de novo review by a district judge of proposed findings and recommendations, Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th Cir. 1988), and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, Douglass v. United Serv. Auto. Ass'n., 79 F.3d 1415, 1429 (5th Cir. 1996).