EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

No. 6:23-cv-00154

James Anthony Hunter,

Plaintiff,

v.

Officer FNU Boller et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Plaintiff James Anthony Hunter, an inmate of the Smith County 

Jail proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit complaining of 

alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. The case has been 

referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell. 

Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order saying 

that he fears for his life because he has filed grievances concerning 

threatening behavior of defendants. Doc. 42. He says that county officials will not print copies for him, and that the lieutenant who authorized the alleged conduct forming the basis of the lawsuit has read 

all of his legal mail. Id. at 1–2. 

Plaintiff also claims that he is not allowed to possess his property, 

that his family’s phone numbers are restricted so he cannot call 

them, that he was put into a cell with unlivable conditions, that he 

does not have access to the law library, that he is afraid to eat the 

food, that he has been denied contact with other inmates and command staff will not speak to him, that his family is afraid to visit him, 

and that his defense attorney is not taking his calls. Plaintiff asks for 

appointment of counsel and for the court to order that he receive 

“free range to properly, fully, and adequately be able to conduct full 

fledged construction of my claims to the full extent within the scope 

of the law.” Id. at 4. 

After review of the pleadings, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be 

denied. Doc. 53. The magistrate judge determined that plaintiff did 

Case 6:23-cv-00154-JCB-KNM Document 62 Filed 02/02/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 396
- 2 -

not show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or that he 

faced a substantial likelihood of irreparable injury if his requested injunctive relief was not granted. Id. at 3. The magistrate judge also 

concluded that plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief was fatally 

overbroad as well as undefined and that plaintiff failed to show that 

his requested injunction would not disserve the public interest. Id.

Plaintiff filed timely objections. Doc. 56. 

The court reviews the objected-to portions of a report and recommendation 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 Servs. Auto. 

Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

In his objections, plaintiff says that it is highly likely that he will 

prevail on the merits of his claims and that the maintenance of order 

and discipline should not be at the cost of his livelihood and welfare. 

Doc. 56. He contends that if he is assaulted again, he could be paralyzed, which is irreparable. Plaintiff asserts that jail officials have 

threatened him with pepper spray, refused to send out his mail, and 

read his incoming mail before he receives it. He complains that the 

court tells him he can present matters well enough on his own, but 

then denies his motion because he did not present matters properly. 

Plaintiff says that he is not allowed to file criminal charges on his 

own, which he argues is unfair. Id. 

Plaintiff’s assertions that he is likely to prevail on the merits 

of his claims and that he faces a substantial likelihood of irreparable injury are speculative and conclusory, and they thus cannot 

sustain a motion for injunctive relief. Lakedreams v. Taylor, 932 

F.2d 1103, 1107 (5th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff did not address the magistrate judge’s conclusions that his requested relief was overbroad 

and that he failed to show his requested injunctive relief would 

not disserve the public interest. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626.The magistrate judge correctly determined that plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief lacked merit. 

Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report and plaintiff’s 

objections de novo, the court overrules plaintiff’s objections and 

Case 6:23-cv-00154-JCB-KNM Document 62 Filed 02/02/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 397
- 3 -

accepts the findings and recommendations of the magistrate 

judge’s report. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 42) is denied. 

So ordered by the court on February 2, 2024.

J. CA MPBE LL BAR KE R

United States District Judge

Case 6:23-cv-00154-JCB-KNM Document 62 Filed 02/02/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 398