Floyd v. Williams

Filing 45

ORDER overruling Plaintiff's Objections; adopting 31 Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court; and denying Plaintiff's 30 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 9/22/2016. (jah)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA STATESBORO DIVISION EDDIE FRANK FLOYD, III, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:15-cv-103 v. WARDEN DOUG WILLIAMS, Defendant. ORDER Before the Court are Plaintiffs Objections to the Magistrate Judge's July 26, 2016, Order and Report and Recommendation. For the reasons set forth below, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs Objections. Additionally, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court and DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (doc. 30). Plaintiff filed this cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-l, et seq. Plaintiff contests certain conditions of his confinement at Smith State Prison in Glennville, Georgia. (Doc. 1.) The Magistrate Judge's Order and Report and Recommendation denied all of Plaintiffs Motions and recommended that the Court deny his Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. 31.) Plaintiff objects to each of these denials. (Doc. 33.) A district judge must consider a party's objections to a magistrate judge's order on a pretrial matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). However, the district judge may modify or set aside that order, and reconsider the pretrial matter, only "where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). "Clear error is a highly deferential standard of review. As the Supreme Court has explained, a finding is 'clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Holton v. City of Thomasville Sch. Dist, 425 F.3d 1325, 1350 (11th Cir. 2005) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). "A decision by the magistrate judge is contrary to law where it fails to follow or misapplies the applicable law." Jackson v. Deen, No. CV 4I2-L39, 2013 WL 3963989, at *3 (S.D. Ga. July 25, 2013) (citation omitted). Having reviewed Plaintiffs Objections, the Court does not find that the Magistrate Judge's Order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The Court CONCURS with the Magistrate Judge's analysis of Plaintiffs Motions and need not rehash that analysis. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order. Plaintiff also objects to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to deny Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction. After an independent and de novo review of the record, the Court again CONCURS with the Magistrate Judge's analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court and DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction. SO ORDERED, this O^^ay of September, 2016. HONOlO^BlEi^RANDA^HALL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHEIW DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

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?