Opinion
Civil Action 9:21-CV-00013-RC-ZJH
09-17-2021
KENNETH ALLEN PRUITT, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH ROBINETTE BIDEN, JR., et al. Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Ron Clark Senior Judge
On January 19, 2021, the court referred this case to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, for pre-trial management. Pending before the court are Plaintiff Kenneth Allen Pruitt's “Motions for Temporary Restraining Order and Injunctive or Declaratory Relief.” Doc. Nos. 2, 19, 39. On August 26, 2021, Judge Hawthorn issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended that Plaintiff's motions be denied. Doc. No. 49. On September 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed objections to Judge Hawthorn's Report and Recommendation. Doc. No. 50.
A party who files timely written objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation is entitled to a de novo determination of those findings or recommendations to which the party specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2)-(3). “Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings [to which they object]. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
The court has conducted a de novo review of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and has carefully considered Plaintiffs objections. Plaintiff has failed to establish any of the necessary elements for a temporary restraining order. The court finds that the magistrate judge's conclusions are correct, and that Plaintiffs objections are without merit.
It is, therefore, ORDERED that Plaintiffs objections (Doc. No. 50) are OVERRULED, and the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (Doc. No. 49) is ADOPTED. Plaintiff Kenneth Allen Pruitt's “Motions for Temporary Restraining Order and Injunctive or Declaratory Relief (Doc. Nos. 2, 19, 39) are DENIED.
So ORDERED.