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.