Thornton v. Pittman

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION SHEDRICK THORNTON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) DR. MICHAEL PITTMAN, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-0605-C ORDER Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge therein advising the Court that Plaintiff's request for declaratory and injunctive relief should be denied.' The Court conducts a de novo review of those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which a timely objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Portions of the report or proposed findings or recommendations that are not the subject of a timely objection will be accepted by the Court unless they are clearly erroneous or

contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989). After due consideration and having conducted a de novo review, the Court finds that Plaintiff's objections should be OVERRULED. The Court has further conducted an independent review of the Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions and finds no error. It is therefore ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation are hereby ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court. For the reasons stated therein, the

' Plaintiff has filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation.

Court ORDERS that Plaintiff's request for declaratory and injunctive relief—construed as a request for preliminary injunctive relief or a temporary restraining order—be DENIED. SO ORDERED. Dated April Ji. 2022. J | “ Cpe] SAM R. CUMMINGS if SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRIQY JUDGE