Flores v. Sanders

E.D. Texas

Flores v. Sanders

DecidedJanuary 12, 2023

Docket6:21-cv-00145

StatusUnknown

This text of Flores v. Sanders (Flores v. Sanders) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Flores v. Sanders, (E.D. Tex. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

§ CHRISTOPHER FLORES, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:21-cv-145-JDK-JDL § JENNIFER SANDERS, et al., § § Defendants. § §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Christopher Flores, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction concerning events at the TDCJ Stiles Unit. Docket No. 79. In his motion, Plaintiff asserts that prison officials have threatened to confiscate his legal materials and harm or kill him, including a particular incident involving Lamar McGee, a correctional officer. On May 12, 2022, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that the Court deny the motion for a preliminary injunction. Docket No. 82. The Report explained that the requested injunctive relief did not relate to Plaintiff’s claims in this case, that Plaintiff failed to show that the officers at the Stiles Unit were in privity with the named Defendants in this case, that the Defendants in this case lacked any power to provide the requested injunctive relief, and that Plaintiff failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his claims, that he faced an imminent threat of irreparable injury, and that his requested relief did not disserve the public interest.

No objections have been filed to the Report. This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to

file objections from ten to fourteen days). Here, Plaintiff did not object in the prescribed period. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews the legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the

standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 82) as the findings of this Court and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Docket No. 79). So ORDERED and SIGNED this 12th day of January, 2023. C5. A Kom UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

§ CHRISTOPHER FLORES, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:21-cv-145-JDK-JDL § JENNIFER SANDERS, et al., § § Defendants. § §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Christopher Flores, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction concerning events at the TDCJ Stiles Unit. Docket No. 79. In his motion, Plaintiff asserts that prison officials have threatened to confiscate his legal materials and harm or kill him, including a particular incident involving Lamar McGee, a correctional officer. On May 12, 2022, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that the Court deny the motion for a preliminary injunction. Docket No. 82. The Report explained that the requested injunctive relief did not relate to Plaintiff’s claims in this case, that Plaintiff failed to show that the officers at the Stiles Unit were in privity with the named Defendants in this case, that the Defendants in this case lacked any power to provide the requested injunctive relief, and that Plaintiff failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his claims, that he faced an imminent threat of irreparable injury, and that his requested relief did not disserve the public interest.

No objections have been filed to the Report. This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to

file objections from ten to fourteen days). Here, Plaintiff did not object in the prescribed period. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews the legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the

standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 82) as the findings of this Court and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Docket No. 79). So ORDERED and SIGNED this 12th day of January, 2023. C5. A Kom UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Flores v. Sanders, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flores-v-sanders-txed-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack