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, )

Download PDF
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 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

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?