Wilmoth et al v. Hobbs et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS in their entirety; denying 45 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 5/1/2014. (mmd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
RAY HOBBS, et al.
The Court has received proposed findings and recommendations from United States
Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney.
After a review of those proposed findings and
recommendations, and the timely objections received thereto,1 as well as a de novo review of the
record, the Court adopts them in their entirety. Accordingly,
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc.
No. 45), is DENIED.
DATED this 1st day of May, 2014.
/s/Susan Webber Wright
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
In his objections, plaintiff seems to say that the growing of a beard is a requirement for Orthodox
Muslims. However, in his deposition, plaintiff states the Quran does not require men to have a beard.
Plaintiff also notes in his objections that the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Holt v. Hobbs.
The Supreme Court agreed to determine “[w]hether the Arkansas Department of Correction’s grooming
policy violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq.,
to the extent that it prohibits petitioner from growing a one-half-inch beard in accordance with his religious
beliefs.” Holt v. Hobbs, 134 S.Ct. 1512 (March 3, 2014). The fact that the Supreme Court granted certiorari
does not change the ruling of the Eighth Circuit. A ruling on a motion for preliminary injunction is not a
decision on the merits.
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?