Lewis v. King et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
DARIOUS D. LEWIS, #2401921, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	Case No. 6:25-cv-129-JDK-JDL
§
BRYAN COLLIER, 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. 	The case was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge John D. Love for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for
the disposition of the case.
On September 30, 2025, Judge Love submitted a Report and Recommendation
that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief be denied. Docket No. 45. A
copy of this Report was mailed to Plaintiff, who sought and obtained an extension of
time to object but failed to file written objections within the time permitted. Docket
Nos. 52, 53.
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-00129-JDK-JDL Document 59 Filed 12/17/25 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 Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other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 Love’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews his
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. 45) as the findings of this Court. 	It is
therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for emergency injunction (Docket
No. 31) is DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of
___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17th	December, 2025.
Case 6:25-cv-00129-JDK-JDL Document 59 Filed 12/17/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>