IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

JOHN DITTOE,

Plaintiff,

v. 

BRYAN COLLIER, ET AL.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-CV-60-RWS

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff John Dittoe’s motion for “partial immediate relief.” Docket 

No. 20. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se filed the above-captioned action complaining of alleged 

deprivations of his constitutional rights. Docket No. 1. The case was referred to the United States 

Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. Plaintiff then filed the present motion, 

stating that he is currently confined at the Clements Unit in Amarillo, where he was assaulted and 

threatened by his cellmate. Docket No. 20. Plaintiff contends that no one has responded to his 

complaints and requests placement in single cell restriction or a special housing unit. Id. 

The Magistrate Judge construed Plaintiff’s motion as seeking a temporary restraining order 

or preliminary injunction and issued a Report recommending that the motion be denied without 

prejudice, as Plaintiff’s right to seek such relief may be available through the TDCJ administrative 

processes, or in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division—the 

court with jurisdiction over the Clements Unit. Docket No. 34. The Magistrate Judge’s Report was 

sent to Plaintiff on March 12, 2024. Id. To date, no acknowledgement of receipt or objections have 

been received. The Fifth Circuit has explained that where a letter is properly placed in the United 

States mail, a presumption exists that the letter reached its destination in the usual time and was 

Case 5:23-cv-00060-RWS-JBB Document 38 Filed 06/10/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 163
Page 2 of 2

actually received by the person to whom it was addressed. Faciane v. Sun Life Assurance Company 

of Canada, 931 F.3d 412, 420–21, n.9 (5th Cir. 2019).

Because no objections have been received, Plaintiff is barred from de novo review by the 

District Judge of the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations and, 

except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings 

and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. See Duarte v. City of Lewisville,

Texas, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017); Arriaga v. Laxminarayan, Case No. 4:21-CV-00203-

RAS, 2021 WL 3287683, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2021).

The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this case and the Report of the Magistrate Judge. 

Upon such review, the Court has determined the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See 

United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate 

Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and 

contrary to law”). Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 34) is ADOPTED as the 

opinion of the District Court. It is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for partial immediate relief (Docket No. 20), construed 

as a motion for injunctive relief, is DENIED. The denial of this motion is without prejudice to

Plaintiff’s right to seek such relief as may be available through the administrative procedures of

TDCJ, the courts of the State of Texas, or the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, 

the court with jurisdiction over the Clements Unit.

.

 

____________________________________

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SIGNED this 10th day of June, 2024.

Case 5:23-cv-00060-RWS-JBB Document 38 Filed 06/10/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 164