LUDY v. NELSON et al

Filing 58

ORDER ADOPTING 43 Report and Recommendations; DENYING 32 Amended Motion; DENYING 39 Motion to Issue Order; DENYING 24 Motion for TRO; DENYING 24 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; and DENYING 25 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Ordered by U.S. District Judge MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 6/10/2014. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
MITCHELL LAVERN LUDY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CYNTHIA NELSON, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-CV-73 (MTT)

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle. (Doc. 43). The Magistrate Judge recommends
denying the Plaintiff’s motion regarding transfer to a different prison in retaliation for
filing a lawsuit (Doc. 24), motion requesting a temporary restraining order against
Johnson State Prison officials who have allegedly removed his medical profiles (Doc.
32), and motion requesting that the Court order Johnson State Prison officials to stamp
his legal mail upon arrival (Doc. 39) because the Plaintiff failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies regarding these claims. The Magistrate Judge also
recommends denying the Plaintiff’s motion seeking a preliminary injunction to return his
anointing oil (Doc. 25) because he has not shown that he meets the criteria for a
preliminary injunction.

The Plaintiff filed an objection to the Recommendation.1 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. In
his objection, the Plaintiff does not contest that he failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies regarding the first three motions nor does the Plaintiff attempt to show he
meets the criteria for a preliminary injunction requiring the return of his anointing oil.
The Court has reviewed the Recommendation, and the Recommendation is adopted
and made the order of this Court. The Plaintiff’s motions (Docs. 24, 25, 32, 39) are
DENIED.

SO ORDERED, this the 10th day of June, 2014.

S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1

The Plaintiff has also filed a motion requesting a contempt order against the Defendants for their failure
to respond to some of his motions (Doc. 56). However, this document primarily sets forth additional
objections to the Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court construes it as an objection. To the extent
the Plaintiff does seek to hold the Defendants in contempt for their failure to file responses, that motion is
DENIED.

2