Differ v. Smith (INMATE 2)
ORDER that the court ADOPTS the 34 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1) Any objection to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is DENIED; 2) Plf's 33 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED; 3) This case is returned to the Magistrate Judge for further action. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 4/15/2013. (wcl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
DENNIS DIFFER, #236 916,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12cv065-WHA
On February 11, 2013, the Magistrate Judge entered a Recommendation (Doc. #34) that
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction be denied. On February 27, 2013, the Plaintiff filed
a motion (Doc. #35) which the Magistrate Judge construed as a motion to reconsider her Report
and Recommendation and which the Magistrate Judge denied on March 6, 2013 (Doc. #36).
Subsequent to that ruling, the Plaintiff has been allowed by the Magistrate Judge to amend the
Complaint (Doc. #44). To the extent that any filings by the Plaintiff might be construed as
objections to the Recommendation and the order denying the motion to reconsider that
Recommendation, and in view of the pending amendment to the Complaint, the court ADOPTS
the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. Any objection to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. #33) is DENIED.
3. This case is returned to the Magistrate Judge for further action.
DONE this 15th day of April, 2013.
/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR 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?