Stocker v. TDCJ Staff

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT March 17, 2025 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

JAMIN STOCKER, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00248 § TDCJ STAFF, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS On February 14, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton issued her “Memorandum and Recommendation to Deny Plaintiff’s Motions” (D.E. 47). The parties were provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); General Order No. 2002-13. No objections have been timely filed. When no timely objection to a magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation is filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation. Guillory v. PPG Indus., Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996)). Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation (D.E. 47), and all other relevant 1 / 2 documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court

e DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (D.E. 45); and e DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Declaratory Relief (D.E. 44) and Motion for Prospective Injunction (D.E. 46) without prejudice to renew at a later time after Plaintiff has been able to conduct sufficient discovery and can provide evidentiary support for a dispositive summary judgment motion. ORDERED on March 17, 2025. GONZAIGS RAMOS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2