1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

DANNY JOHNSTON, 

 Plaintiff / Counter-Defendant, 

v. 

PATRICIA ANN JOHNSTON, 

 Defendant / Counter-Plaintiff, 

v. 

EAST TEXAS OIL FIELD 

CONSTRUCTION, LLC, 

 Counter-Defendant. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 6:23-cv-413-JDK 

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Before the Court is Danny Johnston and Patricia Johnston’s joint stipulation 

to the entry of a second agreed temporary injunction. Docket No. 35. On January 12, 

2024, United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell issued a Report 

recommending that the Court GRANT the request and enter the stipulated 

injunction. Docket No. 36. No objections to the Report have been filed. 

This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de 

novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and 

Recommendation. 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, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), 

Case 6:23-cv-00413-JDK-KNM Document 38 Filed 02/02/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 358
2 

superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to 

file objections from ten to fourteen days). 

Here, no objections have been filed. The Court therefore reviews the 

Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews the legal 

conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v. 

Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding 

that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review 

is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). 

Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case, 

the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to 

law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the 

United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 36) as the findings of this Court. The 

Court therefore GRANTS the parties’ request for a second agreed temporary 

injunction and ORDERS the following: 

1. Neither Patricia Johnston, Danny Johnston, East Texas Oil Field 

Construction, LLC, nor any person acting in concert with any of them or on 

behalf of any of them shall: 

a. Directly or indirectly sell, liquidate, assign, transfer, convert, loan, 

hypothecate, gift, convey, encumber, pledge, conceal, dissipate, or 

otherwise dispose of the following property without this Court’s 

authorization: 

i. The property listed in the Bill of Sale dated December 15, 2020 (a copy 

of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A), between Patricia Johnston and 

East Texas Oil Field Construction, LLC (such property being referred to 

herein as the “Business Property”); and 

ii. The property listed in Exhibit B hereto (such property being referred to 

herein as the “Personal Property”); or 

Case 6:23-cv-00413-JDK-KNM Document 38 Filed 02/02/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 359
3 

b. Directly or indirectly destroy, erase, delete, alter, or otherwise modify any 

internet website or social media posting used for the advertising, 

marketing, promotion, offering for sale, or sale of the Business Property or 

the Personal Property, without this Court’s authorization. 

This injunction is binding upon the parties, their agents, servants, and 

employees, and upon people in concert or participation with them. 

The parties have waived service of the writ related to this agreed temporary 

injunction. 

The parties have waived the requirement of a bond. It is therefore ORDERED 

that no bond shall be required. 

It is ORDERED that this agreed temporary injunction is effective through 

trial of this matter unless otherwise ordered by the Court. 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2nd February, 2024.

Case 6:23-cv-00413-JDK-KNM Document 38 Filed 02/02/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 360