REDDING v. STATE OF GEORGIA et al
Filing
104
ORDER adopting 76 Report and Recommendations; denying 42 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 59 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 66 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 67 Amended Motion; denying 71 Amended Motion. Ordered by Judge C. Ashley Royal on 2/4/13 (lap)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
WAYNE REDDING, a.k.a WAYNE
REDDICK,
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
No. 5:12‐CV‐174 (CAR)
STATE OF GEORGIA, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
___________________________________ :
ORDER ON THE RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge
[Doc. 76] to deny pro se Plaintiff Wayne Redding’s Motions for Preliminary Injunction
[Docs. 42, 59, & 66] and supplemental Motions for Preliminary Injunction [Docs. 67 &
71] relating to his original claims under both 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132. In the Recommendation, the
Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff’s Motions fail to satisfy the prerequisites for the
issuance of a preliminary injunction. As of December 20, 2012, the date of the
Recommendation, Plaintiff has filed twenty‐four motions, notices, and briefs. After
carefully reviewing and liberally construing those filings, the Court concludes Plaintiff
has not filed an Objection to the Recommendation.
1
Having considered the Recommendation, the Court agrees with the findings
and conclusions of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge [Doc. 76] is therefore ADOPTED and MADE THE ORDER OF THE
COURT. Plaintiff’s Motions for Preliminary Injunction [Docs. 42, 59, & 66] and his
supplemental Motions for Preliminary Injunction [Docs. 67 & 71] are DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 4th day of February, 2013.
S/ C. Ashley Royal
C. ASHLEY ROYAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
LMH
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?