THOMAS v. HUMPHREY et al
ORDER ADOPTING 73 Report and Recommendations and DENYING 67 Motion for TRO and DENYING 67 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Ordered by U.S. District Judge MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 4/28/2014. (tlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
EDWARD HALE BURNSIDE, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-CV-108 (MTT)
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle’s Recommendation
(Doc. 73) to deny the Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 67). The
Magistrate Judge recommends denying the motion because the Plaintiff has not met his
burden to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or a substantial threat
of irreparable injury. Additionally, the Magistrate Judge found the Plaintiff’s requested
relief amounted, in part, to a broad instruction for the Defendants to obey the law, which
runs afoul of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d). The Plaintiff has filed a “declaration for the order to
show cause for a preliminary injunction temporary restraining order” (Doc. 77), which
the Court construes as an objection to the Recommendation. The Plaintiff contends he
has established the four prerequisites for a preliminary injunction. However, his
declaration largely reiterates the arguments made in his original motion, along with
conclusory statements that he will suffer irreparable harm. Thus, the Court concludes
his objection is without merit.
The Court has reviewed the Recommendation and the Plaintiff’s objection and
has made a de novo determination of the portions of the Recommendation to which the
Plaintiff objects. The Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. The Recommendation is ADOPTED and
made the order of this Court. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary
injunction (Doc. 67) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 28th day of April, 2014.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?