Caudle v. City of West Fork, Arkansas et al

Filing 19

ORDER denying 3 Motion for TRO; adopting Report and Recommendations re 7 ; granting 9 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren on September 1, 2009. (tg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION STEVE CAUDLE v. Civil No. 09-5144 DEFENDANTS ORDER Now on this 1st day of September 2009, comes on for PLAINTIFF

CITY OF WEST FORK, et al.

consideration the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 7) recommending the denial of plaintiff's Motion for

Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 3).

Also before the Court is

defendants' Motion for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction (Doc. 9) and the Response (Doc. 16) and Reply (Doc. 18) thereto. The

Court, being well and sufficiently advised, finds and orders as follows with respect thereto. 1. On July 20, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion for a

temporary restraining order, seeking to enjoin defendants from razing and demolishing the structures affixed to certain real property owned by plaintiff in West Fork. Magistrate Judge James Marschewski On July 23, 2009, a Report and

issued

Recommendation finding that the structures at issue constituted a nuisance and health hazard to the community. Magistrate Judge

Marschewski, therefore, recommended that plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order enjoining the City from demolishing the structures be denied. Plaintiff has not filed any objections to

the Report and Recommendation. 1

2.

On

July

24,

2009,

defendants

filed

a

motion

for

preliminary and permanent injunction requesting that the Court order the structural nuisances abated and permit the City to carry through with its plans to raze and demolish the structures. Plaintiff has filed a response, stating that he does not object to the permanent injunction, but that he reserves his constitutional claims for damages. Defendants dispute the validity of plaintiff's constitutional claims and the parties also dispute whether

defendants are entitled to attorney's fees and costs associated with the razing and removal of the structures. 3. follows: * The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 7) Upon due consideration, the Court hereby orders as

is adopted in its entirety and plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 3) is DENIED. * Defendants' Motion for Preliminary and Permanent

Injunction (Doc. 9) is GRANTED and defendants are hereby authorized to raze and remove the structures at issue. * The validity of plaintiff's constitutional claims for

damages is not properly before the Court at this juncture and should be addressed by way of a defense motion. The issue of

whether defendants are entitled to attorney's fees and costs should also be addressed by way of a motion and supported by an

itemization of the fees and costs.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Jimm Larry Hendren HON. JIMM LARRY HENDREN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3