Walthall v. The United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WALTER ELLIOT WALTHALL, JR., §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-CV-377
§
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, §
§
Defendant. §
MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND
ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Walter Elliot Walthall, Jr., an inmate confined at the United States Penitentiary
located in Beaumont, Texas, proceeding pro se, brought this lawsuit against the United States of
America.
The court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate
Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court.
The magistrate judge recommends denying plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and
temporary restraining order.
The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such referral, along with the record, pleadings and all available
evidence. Plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. This
requires a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See
FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).
After careful consideration, the court concludes plaintiff’s objections are without merit.
As set forth in the Report, plaintiff has not clearly carried his burden of establishing either that
a substantial threat exists that irreparable harm will result if relief is not granted or that there is
a substantial likelihood he will prevail on the merits. Due to its extraordinary character, injunctive
relief should not be granted unless the party seeking relief has clearly carried the burden of
persuasion as to all elements. Plaintiff has now filed a motion seeking to amend his complaint to
Case 1:25-cv-00377-MAC-ZJH Document 24 Filed 03/10/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

change the nature of the complaint to a civil rights action instead of an action brought under the
Federal Tort Claims Act (#18). Plaintiff’s request to amend his complaint seeking to bring Bivens
claims for the use of excessive force, however, will prove to be no more meritorious.1 Thus,
plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief should be denied.
O R D E R
Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and
conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and the report of the magistrate judge is
ADOPTED. It is
ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining
order (#7) is DENIED.
1 See Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Over the past forty
years, the Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to extend Bivens to allow new constitutional claims.
Hernandez v. Mesa, 589 U.S.93, 101-02 (2020).
2
________________________________________
MARCIA A. CRONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 10th day of March, 2026.
Case 1:25-cv-00377-MAC-ZJH Document 24 Filed 03/10/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>