Garcia v. Lumpkin

• Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
• Decided: April 27, 2022
• Docket: 6:22-cv-00067
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

§ VINICIO GARCIA, #1828198, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:22-cv-067-JDK-JDL § BOBBY LUMPKIN, et al., § § Defendants. § §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Vinicio Garcia, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice inmate proceeding pro se, filed this pro se 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 a document from Plaintiff that the Court has construed as a motion for a preliminary injunction. Docket No. 3. On March 2, 2022, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that the Court deny the motion. Docket No. 6. A copy of this Report was sent to Plaintiff at his last-known address. To date, however, no objections have been filed. 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 Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en bane), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).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 his 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. 6) as the findings of this Court. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (Docket No. 3) is DENIED.

Signed this ( po ) KD Apr 27, 2022 JERQMY DJ KERNODEE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE