Oliver v. Butler et al

Filing 19

ORDER adopting 15 Report and Recommendation: The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation at Doc. 15 and thereby DENIES Plaintiff's 10 motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 8/15/2017. (lmp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MICHAEL OLIVER,
Plaintiff,
v.
MAJOR LYERLA and
SERGEANT SCOTT,
Defendants.

No. 17-cv-206-DRH-DGW
MEMORANDUM and ORDER

HERNDON, District Judge:
Plaintiff Michael Oliver brought this pro se action for deprivations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint consisted of a
list of claims against officials at Menard for violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional
rights in 2015. On June 29, 2017, the Court conducted its preliminary review of the
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and the matter was referred to
Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson (Doc. 7). Plaintiff was permitted to proceed
on one discreet claim: that Defendants Lyerla and Scott retaliated against him for
filing grievances by transferring him to a less desirable part of the Menard
Correctional Center.
Thereafter, Oliver filed a motion for preliminary injunction and temporary
restraining order (Doc. 10). Specifically, Oliver alleges that the prison officials at
Menard only allow him to visit the prison law library every three weeks, as opposed
Page 1 of 2

to every two weeks. He also states that he also is unable to acquire legal materials to
read in his cell and has been denied certain legal material, including the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. 10).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B), Magistrate Wilkerson submitted a
Report and Recommendation (Athe Report@) on July 25, 2017 (Doc. 15).

The

Report recommends that the Court deny Oliver’s motion for preliminary injunction
and temporary restraining order in its entirety. The Report was sent to the parties
with a notice informing them of their right to appeal by way of filing Aobjections@
within 14 days of service of the Report. To date, none of the parties has filed
objections.

The period in which to file objections has expired.

Therefore,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b), this Court need not conduct de novo review.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985).
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report (Doc. 15). The Court DENIES
Duncan’s motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (Doc.
10) for the reasons given in the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 15th day of August, 2017.

Judge Herndon
2017.08.15
08:04:19 -05'00'
United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2