Moon v. Ellis et al (INMATE 1)

Filing 29

ORDER as follows: 1. The court adopts the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and the Objection is OVERRULED. 2. The Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 10 ) is DENIED. 3. The case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for additional proceedings with respect to the claims raised in the complaint as amended. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 6/6/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(dmn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
JAMES CHARLEY MOON,
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. ELLIS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18CV369-WHA

ORDER
This cause is before the court on the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation on the Motion
for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. #21) and the Plaintiff’s Objection thereto (Doc. #24).
The Plaintiff, Moon, identifies an injury sustained in July of 2017 for which he seeks
treatment.
The Magistrate Judge considered the requirements for issuance of injunctive relief,
including a showing by Moon of (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a
substantial threat irreparable injury will occur absent issuance of the injunction; (3) the
threatened injury outweighs the potential damage the requested injunctive relief may cause
the non-moving parties; and (4) the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. (Doc.
#21)(citing Palmer v. Braun, 287 F.3d 1325, 1329 (11th Cir. 2002)). The Magistrate Judge
concluded that the medical evidence in the case showed that Moon had not met these
requirements.
In his objection, Moon relies on the same medical evidence to argue that he is in need of
medical care for his wrist. In his response, Moon contends that he requires surgery because his
wrist fracture healed before surgery was initially performed. The evidence indicates that the
previous wrist fracture healed at a point in the past, and that additional surgery will require him

to have his healed wrist re-broken.
Upon de novo review of the Motion, the response to it and the accompanying evidence,
the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation and the response to that recommendation, this court
agrees that Moon has not established all of the requirements for injunctive relief.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. The court adopts the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and the Objection is
OVERRULED.
2.

The Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. #10) is DENIED.

3. The case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for additional proceedings with
respect to the claims raised in the complaint as amended.
Done this 6th day of June, 2018.

/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE