Opinion
Case No. 6:19-CV-5-JDK-JDL
06-18-2019
DOUGLAS E. MITCHELL, Plaintiff, v. S. PETTY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiff Douglas Mitchell filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaining of alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. Docket No. 1. 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. Docket No. 2.
Mitchell later filed a motion asking to be transferred to safekeeping. Docket No. 7. The Magistrate Judge properly construed the motion as a request for injunctive relief and issued a Report recommending that the motion be denied. Docket No. 10. The Magistrate Judge concluded that Mitchell offered nothing to suggest a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his claims nor that he faced a substantial threat of irreparable injury. Id. In addition, the Magistrate Judge stated that Mitchell failed to show that his requested injunction would not disserve the public interest. See Robinson v. Hunt County, Texas, 921 F.3d 440, 451 (5th Cir. 2019) (setting out the elements for preliminary injunctive relief).
Mitchell received a copy of this Report on or before May 23, 2019, but filed no objections. See Docket No. 11.
Upon reviewing the pleadings in this cause and the Report of the Magistrate Judge, the Court has determined that 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 (1989) (holding that in cases in which no objections to a Magistrate Judge's Report are filed, the standard of review is "clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law"); see also Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). It is accordingly:
ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 10) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the Plaintiff's motion for transfer to safekeeping, construed as a motion for injunctive relief (Docket No. 7), is DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 18th day of June, 2019.
/s/_________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE