Massey v. Townsend

E.D. Texas

Massey v. Townsend

DecidedJanuary 12, 2023

Docket6:22-cv-00182

StatusUnknown

This text of Massey v. Townsend (Massey v. Townsend) 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

Massey v. Townsend, (E.D. Tex. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:22-cv-00182 Steven Louis Massey, Jr., Plaintiff, V. Elliot Townsend, Defendant.

ORDER Plaintiff Steven Louis Massey, Jr., proceeding pro se and forma pauperis, filed the above-styled and numbered civil-rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell, who issued a report and rec- ommendation (Doc. 39) concluding that plaintiff’s motion for pre- liminary injunction (Doc. 36) should be denied for failing to meet the necessary prerequisites for a preliminary injunction under Fed. R. Civ. P 65. See Libertarian Party of Texas v. Fainter, 741 F.2d 728, 729 (5th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff objected to the report. Doc. 41. The court reviews the objected-to portions of a magistrate judge’s report and recommen- dation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s objections fail to show that the report errs in any respect. Specifically, plaintiff does not show that the report’s conclusion is incorrect respecting his failure to meet his burden to show entitle- ment to a preliminary injunction. Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report de novo and being satisfied that it contains no error, the court overrules plaintiff’s ob- jections and accepts the report’s findings and recommendation. For the reasons stated in the report, plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 36) is denied.

So ordered by the court on January 12, 2023.

j/ CAMPBELL BARKER United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:22-cv-00182 Steven Louis Massey, Jr., Plaintiff, V. Elliot Townsend, Defendant.

ORDER Plaintiff Steven Louis Massey, Jr., proceeding pro se and forma pauperis, filed the above-styled and numbered civil-rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell, who issued a report and rec- ommendation (Doc. 39) concluding that plaintiff’s motion for pre- liminary injunction (Doc. 36) should be denied for failing to meet the necessary prerequisites for a preliminary injunction under Fed. R. Civ. P 65. See Libertarian Party of Texas v. Fainter, 741 F.2d 728, 729 (5th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff objected to the report. Doc. 41. The court reviews the objected-to portions of a magistrate judge’s report and recommen- dation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s objections fail to show that the report errs in any respect. Specifically, plaintiff does not show that the report’s conclusion is incorrect respecting his failure to meet his burden to show entitle- ment to a preliminary injunction. Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report de novo and being satisfied that it contains no error, the court overrules plaintiff’s ob- jections and accepts the report’s findings and recommendation. For the reasons stated in the report, plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 36) is denied.

So ordered by the court on January 12, 2023.

j/ CAMPBELL BARKER United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Massey v. Townsend, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/massey-v-townsend-txed-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack