Gibbs v. Jackson

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION LARRY DONNELL GIBBS §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:21cv484 UNKNOWN JACKSON, ET AL. § MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff Larry Donnell Gibbs, an inmate currently at the Telford Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, brought the above-styled lawsuit. The Court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this Court. The Magistrate Judge recommends denying plaintiff’s motion for emergency injunction [Dkt. 65]. The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such referral, along with the record and pleadings. Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. This requires a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After careful consideration, the Court concludes plaintiff’s objections are without merit. As set forth in the Report, plaintiff’s transfer to another unit rendered his claims for injunctive relief moot. See Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir. 2001); Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock Cnty, Texas, 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1991). Further, plaintiff has not clearly carried his burden of establishing either that a substantial threat exists that irreparable harm will result if relief is not granted or that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. See Planned Parenthood of Hous. & Se. Tex. v. Sanchez, 403 F.3d 324, 329 (Sth Cir. 2005). Due to its extraordinary character, injunctive relief should not be granted unless the party seeking relief has clearly carried the burden of persuasion as to all four elements. PCT Transp., Inc. v. Fort Worth & W. R.R. Co., 418 F.3d 535, 545 (5th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff has not carried his burden in this action. ORDER Accordingly, plaintiff’ s objections are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct and the report of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED. It is therefore ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for emergency injunction [Dkt. 65] is DENIED.

SIGNED this 13th day of March, 2025.

teehee 6, Grunertr Michael J. Truncale United States District Judge