Kelly v. Alabama Department of Revenue et al (MAG+)
ORDER directing as follows: (1) plaintiff's 7 objections are OVERRULED; (2) ADOPTING 6 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge; (3) plaintiff's 3 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED without prejudice; (4) this case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 8/26/14. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
KASWANA A. KELLY,
OF REVENUE, et al.,
CASE NO. 2:14-CV-862-WKW
On August 14, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation in this
case that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction be denied. (Doc. # 6.) The
Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff’s motion is due to be denied because she
cannot show the requisite substantial likelihood of success on the merits of her
On August 26, 2014, Plaintiff filed objections to the Recommendation,
(Doc. # 7), along with an amended complaint, (Doc. # 8). The court has conducted
an independent and de novo review of those portions of the Recommendation to
which objection is made.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff contests the
Magistrate Judge’s finding that Plaintiff’s original claims were not properly
pleaded, and she asserts that he did not construe her pro se pleading liberally or
accept her allegations as true. However, Plaintiff’s pro se status does not relieve
her of the obligation to show substantial likelihood of success on the merits of her
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. # 7) are OVERRULED;
The Recommendation (Doc. # 6) is ADOPTED;
Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED without
This case is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for further
DONE this 26th day of August, 2014.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF 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?