Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-CV-00036-RWS
10-01-2020
TODRICK MORRIS, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL HINES, ET AL., Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff Todrick Morris, a prisoner of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Court referred the case to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges.
Plaintiff moved for an order directing prison officials at the Telford Unit to stop interfering with his litigation. The Magistrate Judge construed this motion as a request for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order and issued a Report recommending the motion be denied. Plaintiff did not file objections to this Report; instead, two months after the Report issued, he filed another motion asking for an order directing officials at the Telford Unit to stop obstructing his litigation. In this motion, he acknowledges he is no longer at the Telford Unit, but has been transferred to the Coffield Unit, thus rendering his request for relief against Telford Unit officials moot. Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir. 2001).
Because Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report, he is barred from de novo review by the District Judge of those findings, conclusions, and recommendations and, except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. Duarte v. City of Lewisville, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017).
The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the Report of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918, 109 S.Ct. 3243 (1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge's Report are filed, the standard of review is "clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law."). It is accordingly
ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 16) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the Plaintiff's motions for an order to the Telford Unit administration to stop obstructing his legal work (Docket Nos. 6 and 33) are DENIED.
SIGNED this 1st day of October, 2020.
/s/_________
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE