Smith v. Campbell et al (INMATE 2)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Robert James Smith, it is the Recommendation of the Mag. Judge that: 1) Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction 1 be denied; and this case be referred back to the undersigned for further proceedings. Objections to R&R due by 10/31/2005. Signed by Judge Delores R. Boyd on 10/17/05. (vma, )
Smith v. Campbell et al (INMATE 2)
Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F OR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E RN DIVISION __________________________________ R O B E R T JAM E S SMITH, #153 533 Plaintiff, v. CO M M . DONAL CAM PB EL L, et al., * * * CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-975-F (WO) *
Defendants. * __________________________________ R E C O M M E N D A TI O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE P e n d i n g before the court is Plaintiff's request for preliminary injunctive relief. (Doc. N o . 1.) He seeks a preliminary injunction to enjoin Defendants from continuing to
o v er cr ow d correctional institutions which leads to inadequate security. Upon consideration o f Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, the court concludes that the motion is due t o be denied. D I SC U S S I O N A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy which should not be g r a n te d unless the movant clearly carries the burden of persuasion as to all prerequisites. U n i t e d States v. Jefferson County, 720 F.2d 1511 (11th Cir. 1983). The four prerequisites w h i c h a movant must satisfy are as follows: (1) a substantial likelihood that the movant will ultima tely prevail on the merits, (2) a showing that the movant will suffer irreparable injury u n l e s s the injunction issues, (3) proof that the threatened injury to the movant outweighs the
Page 2 of 3
damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party, and (4) a showing that the i n j u n c ti o n , if issued, will not be adverse to or harm the public interests. Cate v. Oldham, 707 F . 2 d 1176 (11th Cir. 1983); Shatel Corp. v. Mao Ta Lumber and Yacht Corp., 697 F.2d 1352 ( 1 1th Cir. 1983). The court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff's motion and concludes that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he meets each of the prerequisites for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. CONCLUSION Ac cord ingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate 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 O R D E R E D that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the R e c o m m e n d a t i o n on or before October 31, 2005. Any objections filed must specifically i d e n ti f y the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation objected to. Frivolous, c o n c l u s iv e or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are a d v i s e d that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not a p p e a l a b le . Failu re to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the M agistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Cou rt of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual f i n d in g s in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain
Page 3 of 3
error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 th Cir. 1982). See Stein v . Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of P r i c h a r d , 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the d e c i s io n s of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on S e p t e m b e r 30, 1981. D o n e this 17th day of October 2005. / s / Delores R. Boyd D E L O R ES R. BOYD U N I TE D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?