Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16cv1162
09-15-2017
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
The Plaintiff James Willis, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaining of alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. This Court ordered that the matter be referred 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.
Willis filed a motion for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order asking that the Defendants be ordered not to retaliate against him and that he be moved out of the main building and into a housing area called P-6, where he contends that the conditions of confinement are much better. After review of the motion, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the motion for injunctive relief be denied. Willis received a copy of the Magistrate Judge's Report on August 15, 2017, but filed no objections thereto; accordingly, 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 proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the Report of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined 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. 17) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order (docket no. 8) is DENIED.
So Ordered and Signed
Sep 15, 2017
/s/_________
Ron Clark, United States District Judge