Hammonds v. Jones et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 21

ORDER as follows: 1. Plaintiff's 16 Objection is OVERRULED. 2. The 15 Recommendation is ADOPTED. 3. The 7 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED as further set out in the order. 4. The case is referred to the Magistrate Judge for additional proceedings. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 2/25/2015. (dmn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
MIKEL HAMMONDS, # 177 646,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN JONES, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:15-CV-006-WKW
[WO]

ORDER
On February 9, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc.
# 15) that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. # 7) be denied. On
February 17, 2015, Plaintiff Mikel Hammonds filed a motion (Doc. # 16) regarding
his motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. # 7). Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. # 16)
is construed as an Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (Doc.
# 15).
The court has conducted an independent and de novo review of those
portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made.
§ 636(b).

See 28 U.S.C.

In his Objection, Plaintiff complains that his motion for preliminary

injunction should be granted because Defendants continue: (1) to open his legal
mail; (2) to target Plaintiff in retaliation for filing this lawsuit; and (3) to place
Plaintiff in extremely harsh conditions. Plaintiff’s Objection is due to be overruled

because he does not provide any evidence in furtherance of his claims of
constitutional and federal violations, nor does Plaintiff attempt to cure the
deficiencies that the Magistrate Judge cited and elaborated upon in his
Recommendation. Specifically, Plaintiff does not highlight any nexus between the
injunction he seeks and the underlying claims alleged in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
complaint, nor does he argue or demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits
of the present lawsuit.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1.

Plaintiff’s Objection (Doc. # 16) is OVERRULED.

2.

The Recommendation (Doc. # 15) is ADOPTED.

3.

The Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 7) is DENIED.

4.

The case is referred to the Magistrate Judge for additional

proceedings.
DONE this 25th day of February, 2015.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2