Opinion
Civil Action 9:18-CV-139
03-23-2023
JESSE PAUL SKINNER, Plaintiff, v. BRIAN COLLIER, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MARCIA A. CRONE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Jesse Paul Skinner, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several defendants. The court previously referred this matter to the Honorable Christine L. Stetson, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and orders of this court. The magistrate judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge recommending that a motion for preliminary injunction filed by plaintiff be denied.
The court has received the Report and Recommendation, along with the record, pleadings, and all available evidence. Plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation.
The court has conducted a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. After careful consideration, the court is of the opinion the objections are without merit. Plaintiff was transferred to a different prison unit after he filed his motion. Based on the authorities cited by the magistrate judge, the transfer makes his claim for preliminary injunctive relief moot. Plaintiff has not shown there is a reasonable expectation he will subjected again to the conditions he describes at his original prison unit. As a result, the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply. Haralson v. Campuzano, 356 Fed.Appx. 692, 696 (5th Cir. 2009). Further, as the court has denied a motion for class certification filed by plaintiff, he also does not fall under the “inherently transitory” exception applicable to class representatives. Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66, 74 (2013).
ORDER
Accordingly, the objections filed by plaintiff in this matter (#171) are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the report of the magistrate judge (#163) are correct, and the report of the magistrate judge is ADOPTED. The motion requesting a preliminary injunction (#135) is DENIED.