UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION

KYLE STRONGIN, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v. No. 4:22-cv-0576-P

JOHN B. SCOTT, ET AL.,

Defendants.

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

United States Magistrate Judge Jeffrey L. Cureton issued Findings, 

Conclusions, and a Recommendation (“FCR”) regarding the adequacy of 

Plaintiffs’ requests for a preliminary injunction and temporary 

restraining order. ECF No. 265. The FCR recommends that the Court 

deny the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and request for a temporary 

restraining order. Id. at 4. Plaintiffs then filed an Objection to the FCR. 

ECF No. 267.

For the reasons stated below, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs’

Objection (ECF No. 266), ADOPTS the reasoning in the Magistrate 

Judge’s FCR (ECF No. 265), and DENIES the Motion for Preliminary

Injunction. ECF No. 256.

BACKGROUND

Pro-se Plaintiffs, a collection of concerned citizens, filed a complaint

against every election official in the state of Texas. ECF No. 1. In 

Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs sought, in part, “an Order that 

the Defendants adhere to the constitutionally protected process of 

collecting and counting votes that ensures integrity and transparency.” 

ECF No. 231 at 8. 

Plaintiffs filed the Motion for Preliminary Injunction to prevent the 

use of electronic voting systems in ongoing or future Texas elections. 

Case 4:22-cv-00576-P Document 268 Filed 06/02/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID 4926
2 

ECF No. 256 at 30. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, 

ECF No. 258, who issued the FCR for review by this Court. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Normally, a magistrate judge’s FCR regarding a dispositive matter 

is reviewed de novo if a party timely objects. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). The 

district court may then accept, reject, or modify the recommendations or 

findings, in whole or in part. Id. But a party objecting to the FCR must 

“file specific written objections to the proposed findings and 

recommendations.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2) (emphasis added). Meaning, 

an objection must be “sufficiently specific to put the district court on 

notice of the urged error.” Williams v. K&B Equip. Co., 724 F.2d 508, 

511 (5th Cir. 1984). But, where an objection to the FCR is only on a 

general basis, the Court conducts a review for plain error. Douglass v. 

United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1429 (5th Cir. 1996)1. 

In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding 

or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the 

objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation where the disputed determination is found. United 

States v. Mathis, 458 F. Supp. 3d 559, 564 (E.D. Tex. 2020), report and 

recommendation adopted, 458 F. Supp. 3d 559 (E.D. Tex. 2020). If a 

party objecting to the FCR fails to assert specific objections, then the 

district court need not consider frivolous, conclusory, or general 

objections. See Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.3d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 

1987). 

ANALYSIS 

Plaintiffs object to the Magistrate Judge’s FCR for the following 

reasons: (1) the Court’s “refusal to hear the actual controversy before it”; 

(2) Plaintiffs disagree with the Court’s position on the resolution of

jurisdictional questions; (3) the purported “negation” of Plaintiffs’

1 The rule created in Douglass does not ordinarily apply to pro-se litigants, except 

where the magistrate judge’s recommendation explicitly states that a failure to 

specifically object will forfeit de novo review. Douglass, 79 F.3d at 1429. In this case, 

Judge Cureton’s FCR includes such a notice, which states that “specific written 

objections” to a “proposed factual finding or legal conclusion” must be filed. ECF No. 

265 at 5.

Case 4:22-cv-00576-P Document 268 Filed 06/02/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID 4927
3

standing; and (4) the Magistrate’s “perpetuation of due process 

violations through the prevention of progression of this real 

controversy.” ECF No. 266 at 1, 3, 5.

Even affording Plaintiffs’ motion the requisite leniency that the Fifth 

Circuit has mandated in cases involving pro-se litigants, the Court 

cannot discern a particular determination made by the Magistrate 

Judge in his FCR that Plaintiffs are objecting to. See ECF No. 266; see 

also Chhim v. Univ. of Tex. At Austin, 836 F.3d 467, 469 (5th Cir. 2016). 

Plaintiffs fail to discuss with specificity the requirements of a 

preliminary injunction or the Magistrate Judge’s particular findings 

relating to that. For this reason, Plaintiffs’ objections are generalized

and OVERRULED as there is no discernable error in the FCR.

That said, even if Plaintiffs’ Objection contained the requisite 

specificity, it would still be overruled under a de novo review. 

To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must establish

(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his claim, (2) a

substantial threat of irreparable harm, (3) that the balance of hardships

weighs in the moving party’s favor, and (4) that issuing a preliminary

injunction is in the public’s interest. See Women’s Med. Ctr. v. Bell, 248

F.3d 411, 418–20 (5th Cir. 2001); Champion Nat’l Sec., Inc. v. A&A Sec. 

Grp., LLC, No. 3:21-CV-00528-M, 2021 WL 1400979, at *3 (N.D. Tex.

Apr. 13, 2021) (Lynn, J.) The party seeking relief must carry the burden

of persuasion on all four elements to succeed. See Miss. Power & Light 

Co. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 760 F.2d 618, 621 (5th Cir. 1985).

The Magistrate Judge determined that (1) Plaintiffs failed to carry 

their burden to prove a substantial likelihood of success on the merits,

and (2) that granting the motion would disserve the public’s interest. 

ECF No. 265 at 4. The Court addresses each finding in turn.

A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

First, even if Plaintiffs’ objections were construed as properly specific 

as to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Plaintiffs have not shown

that they are likely to succeed on the merits, their arguments are 

unpersuasive. A plaintiff must establish a showing of a substantial 

likelihood that he will succeed on the merits. TitleMax of Tex., Inc. v. 

Case 4:22-cv-00576-P Document 268 Filed 06/02/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID 4928
4

City of Dall., No. 3:21-CV-1040-S-BN, 2021 WL 4994448 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 

11, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:21-CV-1040-S-BN, 

2021 WL 4991989 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 27, 2021) (Scholer, J.) (citing Fla. Med. 

Ass'n, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Health, Ed. & Welfare, 601 F.2d 199, 203 n.3 

(5th Cir. 1979)). 

In determining that Plaintiffs do not prove a likelihood that they will 

prevail on the merits, the FCR notes that there are serious questions 

about Plaintiffs’ standing. ECF No. 265 at 4. Unresolved and wellfounded questions of standing go against Plaintiffs’ ability to reach, 

much less prevail upon, the merits. Plaintiffs object to the standing issue 

with blanket allegations but provide no supporting facts or law that 

allow this Court to conclude that their claim has any likelihood of 

succeeding. This does not establish any likelihood of success on the 

merits. And this want for proof is sufficient to foreclose this Court’s 

granting of a preliminary injunction. Tex. Med. Providers Performing 

Abortion Servs. v. Lakey, 667 F.3d 570, 574 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Lake 

Charles Diesel, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 328 F.3d 192, 203 (5th 

Cir.2003)). Plaintiffs’ potential objection on this finding is therefore,

OVERRULED.

B. Public Interest

Second, regarding the public’s interest in the proposed injunction, 

the FCR found that the injunction would carry too high a burden on 

counties to make such a change—particularly as the injunction would 

have been imposed just days before the May 6 election. ECF No. 265 at 

4. Though this time-constraint issue is now likely moot, the Court still 

believes that the burden of requiring all counties to make changes to 

their election procedures is too onerous to require at this time.

Plaintiffs’ only cognizable contention to the contrary is an 

unsupported allegation that polling places are equipped with paper 

ballots. ECF No. 256 at 30. This misrepresents the text of the cited 

portion of the Texas Election Code, which includes paper ballots as one 

of three contingencies, not a required fail-safe. See TEX. ELEC.

CODE § 25.006(c). 

Further, the staffing requirements and labor hours needed to meet 

Case 4:22-cv-00576-P Document 268 Filed 06/02/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID 4929
5

such a demand would be heavily taxing on localities. ECF No. 214-1 at 

4. The Court is simply not persuaded that this suit, resting on such 

dubious grounds, provides enough justification to impel counties to 

make such an investment at this time. Thus, Plaintiffs’ potential 

objection on this finding is also OVERRULED. 

CONCLUSION

Having considered the Magistrate Judge’s FCR, Plaintiffs’ Objection,

and the applicable law, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs’ Objection,

ADOPTS the reasoning in the Magistrate Judge’s FCR, and DENIES 

the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. ECF No. 256.

SO ORDERED on this 2nd day of June 2023.

Case 4:22-cv-00576-P Document 268 Filed 06/02/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID 4930