Grady v. Jones, et al (INMATE 3)

Filing 34

ORDER that: 1. Plaintiff's objections 33 are OVERRULED; 2. the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 26 is ADOPTED; 3. Plaintiff's Motion for a temporary restraining order 22 is DENIED; and 4. pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this case is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for all pretrial proceedings and entry of any orders or other recommendations as may be appropriate. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 8/6/2012. (jg, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION LARRY JERONE GRADY, # 143344, Petitioner, v. KENNETH JONES, et al., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 3:11-CV-430-WKW [WO] ) ) ) ) ORDER On April 17, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 26) regarding Plaintiff’s “Emergency Protective Order” (Doc. # 22). Plaintiff filed a timely objection. (Doc. # 33.) The court reviews de novo the portion of the Recommendation to which the objection applies. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). For the reasons that follow, the objection is due to be overruled and the Recommendation adopted. The Magistrate Judge construed Plaintiff’s motion for an “Emergency Protective Order” as a motion for a temporary restraining order. The Magistrate Judge then recommended that the motion be denied for failure to comply with the requirements in Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 Plaintiff has not 1 A temporary restraining order may issue “only if . . . specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury will result to the movant demonstrated the requirements for Rule 65(b) relief. Specifically, Plaintiff has not made any showing that he will suffer immediate and irreparable injury from any delay caused by litigating over his access to legal documents. Plaintiff’s objection simply reiterates the points made in his previous pleadings, and while those pleadings provide additional information about subsequent events, neither these events nor his objections remedy his motion’s deficiencies. After a de novo review of the file, the court finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. # 33) are OVERRULED; 2. the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 26) is ADOPTED; 3. Plaintiff’s Motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. # 22) is DENIED; and 4. pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this case is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for all pretrial proceedings and entry of any orders or other recommendations as may be appropriate. DONE this 6th day of August, 2012. /s/ W. Keith Watkins CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). 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?