Opinion
Civil Action 2:21 -CV-00154
03-07-2022
OVERILLE DENTON THOMPSON, JR., Plaintiff, v. BOBBY LUMPKIN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION
DAVID S. MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie Hampton's Memorandum arid Recommendation ("M&R"). (D.E. 19). The M&R recommends that Plaintiffs motions for a temporary restraining order (D.E. 2, D.E. 12) and for a preliminary injunction (D.E/7) be denied. (D.E. 19, p. 6). Plaintiff timely filed objections to the M&R on January 20, 2022. (D.E. 21).
First, Plaintiff objects that the M&R based its decision to recommend denying Plaintiff injunctive relief on Plaintiffs inadvertent use of the word "possible" rather than "probable" when Plaintiff was arguing likelihood of irreparable harm. Id. at 1. Plaintiff argues that the M&R focused on this word, and as such, mischaracterized his argument. Id. However, contrary to Plaintiffs assertions, the M&R did not recommend denying injunctive relief based on Plaintiffs use of the word "possible." See (D.E. 19). Rather, the M&R concluded that injunctive relief should be denied because Plaintiff "cannot demonstrate a substantial threat that he will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is denied." Id. at 5. The Court agrees and, as such, OVERRULES Plaintiffs objection.
Second, Plaintiff objects that the M&R failed to provide a full procedural background concerning the "attack" on his complaint. (D.E. 21, p. 2). Because of this, Plaintiff argues that the "fact-finding process" was rendered defective, which could mislead the Court to "overlook the omitted relevant facts and arguments presented" by Plaintiff. See (D.E. 19, p. 1-3). The Court has carefully reviewed the record and OVERRULES Plaintiffs objection.
Third, Plaintiff objects to the M&R's findings recommending dismissal of his motions for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") and preliminary injunction. (D.E. 21, p. 3, 6). Generally, Plaintiff claims that the M&R uses an erroneous legal standard and misapplies this standard to the facts of this case. See generally (D.E. 21, p. 3-7). However, after making a de novo review, the Court finds that the M&R used the correct legal standard and correctly applied that standard. See (D.E. 19, p. 4-6). Plaintiff has neither alleged facts showing that "immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage" occurred nor met his burden of proving the elements necessary for a preliminary injunction. See FED. R. ClV. P. 65; see also Texansfor Free Enter, v. Tex. Ethics Comm 'n, 732 F.3d 535, 536-37 (5th Cir. 2013). The Court therefore OVERRULES Plaintiffs objections.
Having carefully reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the M&R, the record, the applicable law, and having made a de novo review of the portions of the M&R to which the Plaintiffs objections were directed, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs objections (D.E. 21). Accordingly:
(1) The Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 19).
(2) The Court ORDERS that Plaintiffs motions for a TRO are DENIED (D.E. 2; D.E. 12).
(3) The Court ORDERS that Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED (D.E. 7)
SO ORDERED.