Martin v. Holt et al (INMATE2)
RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that: (1) plaintiff's 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction be denied; (2) this case be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Objections to R&R due by 6/16/2006. Signed by Judge Susan Russ Walker on 6/7/06. (sl, )
Martin v. Holt et al (INMATE2)
Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION _______________________________ SILAS MARTIN, #145609 Plaintiff, v. WARDEN ARNOLD HOLT, et al., Defendants. _______________________________ * * * * * 2:06-CV-490-WKW (WO)
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE Pending before the court is Plaintiff's request for preliminary injunctive relief. (Doc. No. 2.) He seeks a preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants from violating his constitutional rights. Upon consideration of Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, the court concludes that the motion is due to be denied. DISCUSSION 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 satisfy are as follows: (1) a substantial likelihood that the movant will ultimately prevail on the merits, (2) a showing that the movant will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction issues, (3) proof that the threatened injury to the movant outweighs the damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party, and (4) a showing that the
Page 2 of 3
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 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 Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that: 1. Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 2) 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 June 16, 2006. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. 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 to the proposed findings and recommendations in the Magistrate 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 report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of
Page 3 of 3
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 prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. DONE, this 7th day of June, 2006.
/s/ Susan Russ Walker SUSAN RUSS WALKER UNITED 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?