Williams v. Onwuchekwa

E.D. Texas

Williams v. Onwuchekwa

DecidedJune 26, 2025

Docket6:24-cv-00303

StatusUnknown

This text of Williams v. Onwuchekwa (Williams v. Onwuchekwa) 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

Williams v. Onwuchekwa, (E.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:24-cv-00303 James D. Williams, Plaintiff, V. Ezenwanyi Onwuchekwa et al., Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff James D. Williams, proceeding pro se and im forma pauperis, filed this civil-rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to a magistrate judge, who issued a report and recommendation (Doc. 27) that plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 14) be denied as moot because plaintiff has been transferred from the Beto Unit. Plaintiff filed objections. Doc. 30. Plaintiff contends that the medical staff at the Jester II Unit are retaliating against him because he filed a lawsuit against the Beto Unit medical staff and because the medical staff at both units have the same ethnic origin. Doc. 30. Plaintiff argues that a pre- liminary injunction should issue to prevent this retaliation. The court reviews the objected-to portions of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The report correctly recom- mended denial of plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction because any request for injunctive relief at the Beto Unit became moot when plaintiff was transferred to the Jester III Unit. See Her- man ». Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir. 2001) (holding that inmate’s transfer rendered his claim for declaratory and injunc- tive relief moot). Furthermore, the Jester III Unit medical staff are not named as defendants in plaintiff's amended complaint, and _ his

retaliation claims against the Jester III Unit medical staff are also absent from the amended complaint. Doc. 5. His live complaint thus does not assert claims supporting injunctive relief against of- ficials at the Jester IIT Unit. See Bucklew v. St. Clair, No. 3:18-cv- 02117, 2019 WL 2251109, at *2 (N.D. Tex. May 15, 2019). Plain- tiff’s objections reflect a disagreement with the findings and con- clusions of the report but fail to establish that any error in fact or law is present. Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report, and being sat- isfied that it contains no error, the court accepts its findings and recommendation. Doc. 27. For the reasons stated in the report, plaintiff motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 14) is denied. So ordered by the court on June 26, 2025. Conbak 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. 6:24-cv-00303 James D. Williams, Plaintiff, V. Ezenwanyi Onwuchekwa et al., Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff James D. Williams, proceeding pro se and im forma pauperis, filed this civil-rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to a magistrate judge, who issued a report and recommendation (Doc. 27) that plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 14) be denied as moot because plaintiff has been transferred from the Beto Unit. Plaintiff filed objections. Doc. 30. Plaintiff contends that the medical staff at the Jester II Unit are retaliating against him because he filed a lawsuit against the Beto Unit medical staff and because the medical staff at both units have the same ethnic origin. Doc. 30. Plaintiff argues that a pre- liminary injunction should issue to prevent this retaliation. The court reviews the objected-to portions of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The report correctly recom- mended denial of plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction because any request for injunctive relief at the Beto Unit became moot when plaintiff was transferred to the Jester III Unit. See Her- man ». Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir. 2001) (holding that inmate’s transfer rendered his claim for declaratory and injunc- tive relief moot). Furthermore, the Jester III Unit medical staff are not named as defendants in plaintiff's amended complaint, and _ his

retaliation claims against the Jester III Unit medical staff are also absent from the amended complaint. Doc. 5. His live complaint thus does not assert claims supporting injunctive relief against of- ficials at the Jester IIT Unit. See Bucklew v. St. Clair, No. 3:18-cv- 02117, 2019 WL 2251109, at *2 (N.D. Tex. May 15, 2019). Plain- tiff’s objections reflect a disagreement with the findings and con- clusions of the report but fail to establish that any error in fact or law is present. Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report, and being sat- isfied that it contains no error, the court accepts its findings and recommendation. Doc. 27. For the reasons stated in the report, plaintiff motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 14) is denied. So ordered by the court on June 26, 2025. Conbak BARKER United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Williams v. Onwuchekwa, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-onwuchekwa-txed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack