Filed: Oct. 11, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 11, 2017
Summary: MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF RON CLARK , District Judge . The Plaintiff Queronde Chaisson, proceeding pro se , filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaining of alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. This Court ordered that the matter be referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended
Summary: MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF RON CLARK , District Judge . The Plaintiff Queronde Chaisson, proceeding pro se , filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaining of alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. This Court ordered that the matter be referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended ..
More
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
RON CLARK, District Judge.
The Plaintiff Queronde Chaisson, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaining of alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. This Court ordered that the matter be referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges.
Chaisson has filed a motion for injunctive relief, which was denied on August 29, 2017. While this motion was pending, Chaisson filed an amended motion for injunctive relief on August 24, 2017. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the amended motion for injunctive relief be denied, and Chaisson received a copy of this Report on September 11, 2017. He did not file timely objections to this Report; accordingly, he is barred from de novo review by the District Judge of those findings, conclusions, and recommendations and, except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the Report of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918, 109 S.Ct. 3243 (1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge's Report are filed, the standard of review is "clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.") It is accordingly
ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (docket no. 41) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the Plaintiff's amended motion for injunctive relief (docket no. 36) is DENIED.
So Ordered.
