Opinion
Civil Action 1:22cv259
06-01-2023
MALCOLM WEBB v. D. HOLCOMB
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Zack Hawthorn United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff Malcolm Webb, an inmate confined within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed the above styled civil rights lawsuit. 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.
Discussion
Plaintiff has filed what has been construed as a motion for preliminary injunction (doc. no. 18). Plaintiff aks the court to issue an order directing officials at the Smith Unit not to interfere with his access to the courts. He states the warden has kept him from going to the law library.
At the time he filed his motion, plaintiff was incarcerated at the Smith Unit. He subsequently informed the court of his transfer to the Clements Unit. A transfer to another correctional facility renders a claim for injunctive relief based on conditions at a litigant's former correctional facility moot. Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock County, 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1991); Beck v. Lynaugh, 842 F.2d 759, 762 (5th Cir. 1988). As a result, plaintiff's motion seeking a preliminary injunction should be denied as moot.
Recommendation
Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied as moot.
Objections
Objections must be (1) specific, (2) in writing, and (3) served and filed within 14 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).
A party's failure to object bars that party from (1) entitlement to 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) (en banc).