Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING 8 Report and Recommendations and DENYING 7 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Ordered by U.S. District Judge MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 4/29/2014. (tlh)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION RODERICK MCKISSICK, Plaintiff, v. Governor NATHAN DEAL, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-CV-72(MTT) ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle. (Doc. 8). The Magistrate Judge, having reviewed the Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 7), recommends denying the motion because the Plaintiff did not request appropriate injunctive relief and he fails to establish the prerequisites for granting a preliminary injunction. The Plaintiff filed an objection to the Recommendation. (Doc. 11). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has thoroughly considered the objection and has made a de novo determination of the portions of the Recommendation to which the Plaintiff objects. The Plaintiff does not address the reasons stated in the Recommendation for denying his request for preliminary injunction. Instead, the Plaintiff argues that the 145 pages of exhibits he attached to his first complaint show multiple violations of his constitutional rights. The Plaintiff has already been advised that it is his duty to meet the pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 by filing a clear and concise complaint and that this duty cannot be met by simply attaching numerous exhibits to his complaint in lieu of making direct allegations. (Doc. 9). 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 preliminary injunction is DENIED. SO ORDERED, this 29th 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?