Bell et al v. Riley et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 42

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that: (1) the plf's 41 objection to the 40 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Mag Judge is overruled; (2) the 40 report and recommendation of the Mag Judge is ADOPTED; (3) the 36 motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED; (4) this case is referred back to the Mag Judge for additional proceedings. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 7/29/11. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION DARRIUS BRYANT BELL, #149992 Plaintiff, v. BOB RILEY, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:09-cv-1076-MEF (WO-DO NOT PUBLISH) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 40) and the Plaintiff’s Objections to that recommendation (Doc. # 41), the Court does not believe that the Plaintiff has met the criteria for obtaining a preliminary injunction. Specifically, the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs the potential damage to the non-moving party; and (4) that the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. See Palmer v. Braun, 287 F.3d 1325, 1329 (11th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. The plaintiff's objection (Doc. #41) to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge filed on July 18, 2011 is overruled; 2. That the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 40) filed on June 30, 2011 is ADOPTED. 3. The motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. #36) filed by plaintiff is DENIED. 4. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for additional proceedings. th Done this the 29 day of July, 2011. /s/ Mark E. Fuller UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?