Pierce v. An et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
TY BRETT PIERCE, #2499789, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	Case No. 6:25-cv-339-JDK-KNM
§
ALICIA AN, et al., 	§
§
Defendants. 	§
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, a prisoner of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed this
civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 about alleged violations of his
constitutional rights in prison and moved for a temporary restraining order and a
declaratory judgment. 	The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K.
Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the
disposition of the case.
On October 8, 2025, Judge Mitchell submitted a Report and Recommendation
that Plaintiff’s motions for declaratory and preliminary injunctive relief be denied.
Docket No. 17. 	A copy of this Report was mailed to Plaintiff, who received it on
October 29, 2025, but has not filed timely written objections. Docket No. 22.
This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de
novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of the Report and Recommendation.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire
record and makes an independent assessment under the law. 	Douglass v. United
Case 6:25-cv-00339-JDK-KNM Document 23 Filed 12/09/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other
grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from
ten to fourteen days).
Here, Plaintiff did not object in the prescribed period. 	The Court therefore
reviews Judge Mitchell’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews
her legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. 	See United
States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989)
(holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard
of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”).
Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case,
the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to
law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the
United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 17) as the findings of this Court. 	It is
therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions (Docket Nos. 2, 4) are DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of
___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9th	December, 2025.
Case 6:25-cv-00339-JDK-KNM Document 23 Filed 12/09/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>