Harden v. Lappin (INMATE2)

Filing 5

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that Plaintiff's 1 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction be DENIED; and this case be referred back to the undersigned for further proceedings. Objections to R&R due by 8/22/2005. Signed by Judge Susan Russ Walker on 8/9/2005. (dmn)

Harden v. Lappin (INMATE2)

Doc. 5

Case 2:05-cv-00691-MHT-SRW

Document 5

Filed 08/09/2005

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE M IDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAM A NORT HERN DIVISION __________________________________ T ABER HARDEN, #91703-020 Plaint iff, v. HARLEY G. LAPPIN * * * CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-691-T (WO) *

* Defendant . __________________________________ RECO MMENDATIO N OF THE MAGIS TRATE JUDGE Pending before the court is Plaintiff's request for preliminary injunctive relief. (Doc. No. 1.) He seeks a p r e l i m inary injunction prohibiting the Director of the Bureau of Prisons from t erminat ing the federal boot camp program. Upon consideration of Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunct ion, the court concludes that the motion is due to be denied. DIS CUS S IO N A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy which should not be granted unless the movant clearly carries the burden of persuasion as to all prerequisites. United States v. Jefferson County, 720 F.2d 1511 (11th Cir. 1983). The four prerequisites which a movant must sat isfy are as follows: (1) a substantial likelihood that the movant will ultimately prevail on the merit s, (2) a showing that the movant will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction issues, (3) p roof that the threatened injury to the movant outweighs the damage the proposed injunction may

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:05-cv-00691-MHT-SRW

Document 5

Filed 08/09/2005

Page 2 of 3

cause the opposing party, and (4) a showing that the injunction, if issued, will not be adverse to or harm the public interests. Cate v. Oldham, 707 F.2d 1176 (11th Cir. 1983); Shatel Corp. v. Mao Ta Lumber and Yacht Corp., 697 F.2d 1352 (11th Cir. 1983). The court has carefully reviewed Plaint iff's motion and concludes that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he meets each of the p rerequisit es for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. CONCLUS IO N Accordingly , it is the RECOM M ENDAT ION of the M agist rat e Judge that: 1. Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 1) be DENIED; and 2. This case be referred back to the undersigned for further proceedings. It is further ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the Recommendation on or before August 22, 2005. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the M agist rat e Judge's Recommendation objected to. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. Failure to file written objections t o t h e p rop osed findings and recommendations in the M agist rat e Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the rep ort accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injust ice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc.,

Case 2:05-cv-00691-MHT-SRW

Document 5

Filed 08/09/2005

Page 3 of 3

667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down p rior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. DONE, this 9th day of August, 2005.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker SUSAN RUSS WALKER UNIT ED STATES M AGIST RAT E JUDGE