Gaines v. Mosley et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 4

RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that (1) plaintiff's 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction be denied; and (2) this case be referred back to the undersigned for further proceedings. Objections to R&R due by 12/12/2005. Signed by Judge Delores R. Boyd on 12/1/05. (sl, )

Gaines v. Mosley et al (INMATE 2)

Doc. 4

Case 2:05-cv-01124-MEF-TFM

Document 4

Filed 12/01/2005

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION __________________________________ G A R R E T T LEON GAINES, #173 280 * P l a i n t if f , v. G W E N D O L Y N MOSLEY, et al., * * CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-1124-F (W O ) *

D e f e n d a n ts . * __________________________________ R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE P e n d in g before the court is Plaintiff's request for preliminary injunctive relief. (Doc. N o . 3.) He seeks a preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants from housing him in d e fin ite ly on lock up as a form of punishment and retaliation. Upon consideration of P lain tiff's motion for preliminary injunction, the court concludes that the motion is due to b e denied. D IS C U S S IO N A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy which should not be gra n te d unless the movant clearly carries the burden of persuasion as to all prerequisites. U n ited States v. Jefferson County, 720 F.2d 1511 (11th Cir. 1983). The four prerequisites w h ich a movant must satisfy are as follows: (1) a substantial likelihood that the movant will u ltima tely prevail on the merits, (2) a showing that the movant will suffer irreparable injury u n le ss the injunction issues, (3) proof that the threatened injury to the movant outweighs the

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:05-cv-01124-MEF-TFM

Document 4

Filed 12/01/2005

Page 2 of 3

damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party, and (4) a showing that the injun ctio n , if issued, will not be adverse to or harm the public interests. Cate v. Oldham, 707 F .2 d 1176 (11 th Cir. 1983); Shatel Corp. v. Mao Ta Lumber and Yacht Corp., 697 F.2d 1352 (1 1 th Cir. 1983). The court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff's motion and concludes that P la in tiff has failed to demonstrate that he meets each of the prerequisites for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. CONCLUSION A c c o rd in gly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that: 1 . Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 3) 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 atio n on or before December 12, 2005. Any objections filed must specifically id e n tif y the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation objected to. Frivolous, co n clus ive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are a d vis e d that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not a p p e a la b le . F a ilu re to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the M a gis tra te Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District C o u rt of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual fin d in gs in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain

Case 2:05-cv-01124-MEF-TFM

Document 4

Filed 12/01/2005

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 (11 th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of P ric h a r d , 661 F.2d 1206 (11 th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the d e c is io n s of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on Se p te m b e r 30, 1981. D o n e this 1st day of December 2005.

/s/ Delores R. Boyd D E LO R E S R. BOYD U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE