United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division
M. BROWN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is the Report and Recommendation issued by United
States Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden, Doc. #81,
recommending that Levonzel Anderson's motion for
preliminary injunction, Doc. #32, be denied. For the reasons
below, the Report and Recommendation will be adopted as the
order of the Court.
about May 20, 2016, Levonzel Anderson filed a complaint in
this Court against numerous employees of the Mississippi
State Penitentiary and the Mississippi Parole Board. Doc. #1.
The complaint alleges that the prison and Parole Board
employees are conspiring to keep Anderson in prison.
Id. at 8.
about November 4, 2016, Anderson filed a “Motion for
Leave to File an Amended Complaint” seeking to add, in
relevant part, additional allegations involving incidents of
rape that occurred while he was sleeping. Doc. #32. United
States Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden treated the motion as
a motion for preliminary injunction seeking protection from
the alleged incidents of rape, see Doc. #88, and set
a hearing on the motion for December 9, 2016, Doc. #38.
December 9, 2016, Judge Virden held the hearing on the motion
for preliminary injunction. Doc. #47. Following the hearing,
on April 28, 2017, Judge Virden issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that the motion be denied because
Anderson failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of
success on the merits. Doc. #81 at 2-3. On or about June 2,
2017, Anderson filed a document captioned, “Plaintiffs
Objections to United States Magistrate Judge Report
and Recommendations on Preliminary Injunction.” Doc.
objections to a report and recommendation have been filed, a
court must conduct a “de novo review of those portions
of the ... report and recommendation to which the Defendants
specifically raised objections.” Gauthier v. Union
Pac. R.R. Co., 644 F.Supp.2d 824, 828 (E.D. Tex. 2009)
(citing Douglass v. United Serv. Auto. Ass'n, 79
F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996)) (internal citation
omitted). However, “frivolous, conclusive, or general
objections need not be considered by the district
court.” Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 834
F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).
established in the Report and Recommendation and during the
hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction, Anderson
alleges that he has been sexually assaulted multiple times
while he was sleeping and under the influence of psychotropic
medication. He alleges that the assaults did not wake him
from his sleep but that he “felt funny” upon
awakening, as if someone had “tampered with his
butt.” However, the Prison Rape Elimination
(“PREA”) coordinator has investigated
Anderson's allegations of sexual assault many times but
has never found any evidence to support his claim that the
sexual assaults took place. See Doc. #57-1.
who suffers from severe mental health issues, conceded that
the assaults could be a product of his imagination. He has
been housed in many different locations, and has reported
nocturnal assaults in nearly all of those places. He even
reported that he was assaulted multiple times while housed
alone in a cell at the Unit 42 hospital at the Mississippi
State Penitentiary. The defendants represent that the video
footage of Anderson's cell for specific ...