Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Peters v. Davis, 6:17cv595. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. Texas Number: infdco20190227h58 Visitors: 4
Filed: Feb. 25, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 25, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF RON CLARK , District Judge . The Plaintiff Michael Peters, 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
More

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

The Plaintiff Michael Peters, 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.

Peters filed a motion on October 9, 2018 which the Magistrate Judge construed as a request for a temporary restraining order. A Report was issued recommending that the motion be denied. Peters received a copy of this Report but filed no objections thereto; 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. 142) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further

ORDERED that the Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order (docket no. 141) is DENIED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer