Downes v. Department of Corrections et al (INMATE 1)
Filing
84
ORDERED as follows: (1) Plaintiffs objection (Doc. # 80 ) is OVERRULED; (2) The Recommendation (Doc. # 77 ) is ADOPTED; (3) Plaintiffs motions for preliminary injunction (Docs. # 3 , 4 ) are DENIED; and (4) This action is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 11/20/2015. (kh, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
JAMES R. DOWNES, # 281824,
Plaintiff,
v.
CARTER DAVENPORT, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
) CASE NO. 2:15-CV-437-WKW
)
)
)
)
ORDER
On October 22, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation
(Doc. # 77) to which Plaintiff filed an objection (Doc. # 80).
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). Plaintiff’s
arguments do not address or undermine the finding by the Magistrate Judge that
Plaintiff failed to meet the prerequisites necessary to warrant the extraordinary
relief of a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
(1)
Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. # 80) is OVERRULED;
(2)
The Recommendation (Doc. # 77) is ADOPTED;
(3)
Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunction (Docs. # 3,4) are
DENIED; and
(4)
This action is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for further
proceedings.
DONE this 20th day of November, 2015.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
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?