1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

ESAW LAMPKIN, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

JASON PERRINI, et al., 

 Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 6:23-cv-108-JDK-JDL 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Esaw Lampkin, a Henderson County Jail inmate proceeding pro se, 

brings this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to 

United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. 

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction ordering 

his release from what he characterizes as illegal detention (Docket No. 5) and a 

motion seeking a restraining order prohibiting Henderson County agents from 

retaliating against him for filing this lawsuit (Docket No. 6). On June 9, 2023, Judge 

Love issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court deny 

Plaintiff’s motions. Docket No. 25. Plaintiff objected. Docket No. 29. 

Where a party timely objects to the Report and Recommendation, the Court 

reviews the objected-to findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo. 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 6:23-cv-00108-JDK-JDL Document 32 Filed 07/28/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 161
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 Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other 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). 

In his objections, Plaintiff argues the merits of his claim that he was illegally 

stopped by law enforcement. Docket No. 29. But he does not dispute or even address 

the Magistrate Judge’s finding that, depending on the status of the criminal charges 

arising from that stop, this Court is likely barred from reviewing that claim by either 

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), or Profit v. Ouachita Parish, 411 F. App’x 

708 (5th Cir. 2011) (holding that district court “correctly stayed the proceedings in 

this civil action pending the resolution of the criminal charges” where the plaintiff 

challenged the legality of his arrest and prosecution). And he does not include any 

discussion of the recommended denial of preliminary injunctive relief against possible 

retaliation. 

“The party seeking a preliminary injunction must show that the threatened 

irreparable harm is ‘more than mere speculation,’ and ‘that the injury is imminent.’” 

Rodden v. Fauci, 571 F. Supp. 3d 686, 689 (S.D. Tex. 2021) (quoting Janvey v. Alguire, 

647 F.3d 585, 601 (5th Cir. 2011); Humana, Inc. v. Jacobson, 804 F.2d 1390, 1394 

(5th Cir. 1986)). Plaintiff’s motions do not rise to that level. 

Having conducted a de novo review of the record in this case and the 

Magistrate Judge’s Report, the Court has determined that the Report of the 

Magistrate Judge is correct, and Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. Accordingly, 

the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 25) as 

Case 6:23-cv-00108-JDK-JDL Document 32 Filed 07/28/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 162
3 

the opinion of the District Court and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary 

injunction (Docket No. 5) and motion seeking a restraining order (Docket No. 6). 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28th July, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00108-JDK-JDL Document 32 Filed 07/28/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 163