Pruitt v. Biden, Jr.

Docket 9:21-cv-00013

Filed
2021-01-19
Terminated
2022-09-01
Case type
cv

Outcome

other dismissal

FJC civil IDB DISTRICT=40 OFFICE=9 DOCKET=2100013 FILEDATE=01/19/2021 DISP=14, PROCPROG=1, JUDGMENT=0; codebook: https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/idb/codebooks/Civil%20Codebook%201988%20Forward%2010252023.pdf

Outcome source

Parties and representation

      Party and firm records are not available for this case.

      Panel

        No sourced panel votes are recorded.

        Opinions and documents

        IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION KENNETH ALLEN PRUITT, § § Plaintiff, § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:21-CV-00013-RC-ZJH § v. § § JOSEPH ROBINETTE BIDEN, JR., et al. § § Defendants. § § ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE On January 19, 2021, the court referred this case to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, for pre-trial management. Pending before the court are Plaintiff Kenneth Allen Pruitt’s “Motions for Temporary Restraining Order and Injunctive or Declaratory Relief.” Doc. Nos. 2, 19, 39. On August 26, 2021, Judge Hawthorn issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended that Plaintiff’s motions be denied. Doc. No. 49. On September 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed objections to Judge Hawthorn’s Report and Recommendation. Doc. No. 50. A party who files timely written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is entitled to a de novo determination of those findings or recommendations to which the party specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(c); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2)–(3). “Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings [to which they object]. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). The court has conducted a de novo review of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and has carefully considered Plaintiff’s objections. Plaintiff has failed to establish any of the necessary elements for a temporary restraining order. The court finds that the magistrate judge’s conclusions are correct, and that Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. It is, therefore, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. No. 50) are OVERRULED, and the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (Doc. No. 49) is ADOPTED. Plaintiff Kenneth Allen Pruitt’s “Motions for Temporary Restraining Order and Injunctive or Declaratory Relief” (Doc. Nos. 2, 19, 39) are DENIED.

        Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.