MOSS v. KNOX et al

Filing 117

ORDER ADOPTING 94 Report and Recommendations concerning 78 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and TRO. The Court DENIED 78 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and TRO. The Court does not ma ke a ruling concerning the Magistrate Judges recommendation to grant 73 Defendant Prescott's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies. Instead, the Court REFERS the new allegations in the Plaintiff's Objection concerning his efforts to exhaust his administrative remedies, which the Court construes as a motion to amend or supplement the record, to the Magistrate Judge for consideration. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 9/21/2017. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
JEFFREY EDWARD MOSS,

Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN PRESCOTT, et al.,

Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-CV-10 (MTT)

ORDER
Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Stephen Hyles’s
Recommendation (Doc. 94) concerning Plaintiff Jeffrey Edward Moss’s Motion for a
Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against Judge Thomas
Wilson (Doc. 78) and Defendant Carolyn Prescott’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to
Exhaust Administrative Remedies (Doc. 73). The Magistrate Judge recommends that
the Plaintiff’s motion be denied and that Defendant Prescott’s motion be granted. Doc.
94 at 6-7, 11. Plaintiff Jeffrey Edward Moss has objected to both of these
recommendations. Doc. 98. In his objection, the Plaintiff appears to allege new facts
related to Defendant Prescott’s motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies. Id. at 4. The Court construes this as a motion to amend or supplement the
record concerning the motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72, the Court refers that motion to the
Magistrate Judge. As to the Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and TRO,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has performed a de novo review and
accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation
concerning Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and TRO (Doc. 78) and thus that
motion is DENIED. The Court does not make a ruling concerning the Magistrate
Judge’s recommendation to grant Defendant Prescott’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to
Exhaust Administrative Remedies (Doc. 73). Instead, the Court REFERS the new
allegations in the Plaintiff’s Objection concerning his efforts to exhaust his administrative
remedies, which the Court construes as a motion to amend or supplement the record, to
the Magistrate Judge for consideration.

SO ORDERED, this the 21st day of Sep, 2017.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2