WILLIAMS v. OWENS et al

Filing 39

ORDER ADOPTING 36 Report and Recommendations; GRANTING 16 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; DENYING 25 Motion for Preliminary Injunction/Motion for TRO; DENYING 32 Motion for Preliminary Injunction/Motion for TRO. Ordered by U.S. District Judge MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 9/15/2014. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
GRADY R. WILLIAMS, JR,
Plaintiff,
v.
Commissioner BRIAN OWENS, et al.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-CV-254 (MTT)

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Stephen Hyles. (Doc. 36). The Magistrate Judge recommends
granting the Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 16) and denying the Plaintiff’s motions
for a preliminary injunction. (Docs. 25, 32). Specifically, the Magistrate Judge
recommends granting the motion to dismiss because the Plaintiff failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies before filing his § 1983 action pursuant to the Prisoner
Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Brown v. Sikes, 212 F.3d 1205, 1207
(11th Cir. 2000). Moreover, he did not “complet[e] the administrative review process in
accordance with the applicable procedural rules.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218
(2007). The Magistrate Judge recommends denying the Plaintiff’s motion for a
preliminary injunction because the specific injunctive relief requested is impermissible

under the law,1 and the Plaintiff has failed to show “substantial likelihood of success on
the merits.”
The Plaintiff has objected to the Recommendation. 2 (Doc. 37). Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has considered the Plaintiff’s objections and has made a
de novo determination of the portions of the Recommendation to which the Plaintiff
objects. Because the Plaintiff failed to complete the grievance process regarding his
prior to protect claim and never filed a grievance for the denial of medical care claim,
the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the administrative remedies have not
been exhausted. Further, the Plaintiff has failed to allege injunctive relief permissible
under the law; thus, dismissing the motion for a preliminary injunction is warranted.
Therefore, the Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Defendants’ motion to
dismiss is GRANTED, and the Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 15th day of September, 2014.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1

See, e.g., Elend v. Basham, 471 F.3d 1199, 1209 (11th Cir. 2006) (“It is well established in this circuit
that an injunction demanding that a party do nothing more specific than ‘obey the law’ is impermissible.”).
2
The Plaintiff also filed a supplemental objection on September 8, 2014 in addition to the objection filed
on September 2, 2014. (Doc. 38). However, no arguments raised in the supplemental objection alter this
Court’s review of the Recommendation.

-2-