Scott v. Benson et al

Filing 36

ORDER Accepting 33 Report and Recommendations. The plaintiff's 20 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is hereby denied. Signed by Senior Judge Donald E O'Brien on 4/30/12. (djs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
WESTERN DIVISION
DANIEL J. SCOTT,
Plaintiff,

No. 11-CV-4055-DEO

vs.
MARY BENSON, ARNP, et al.,

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
(Docket No. 33)

Defendants.
____________________
I.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction
(Docket

No.

20),

and

a

hearing

was

held

before

Chief

Magistrate Judge Paul A. Zoss. Following the hearing on March
19, 2012, Judge Zoss issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) (Docket No. 33) that allowed for parties’ objections
to be filed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b), within fourteen days of the service of the
R&R.

No objections are before this Court.
The background as set out in the R&R will not be repeated

here, but the same is referenced as if fully set out herein.
The Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 33), provides
the legal standard for determining whether a preliminary
injunction is appropriate and sets out each of the pertinent
factors in turn: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2)

irreparable harm to the plaintiff; (3) balance of equities;
and (4) public interest.

1

After a thorough analysis, the R&R concludes that the
Dataphase/Winter factors outlined in the R&R weigh against
issuing a preliminary injunction; and it is recommended the
plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction be denied.
II.
A.

ANALYSIS

Standard of Review

Pursuant to statue, this Court’s standard of review for
a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is as follows:
A judge of the court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the
report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.
A judge of the court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate
[judge].
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Similarly, Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 72(b) provides for review of a magistrate judge’s

1

The R&R referenced Dataphase/Winter factors: Winter v.
Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008)(citing
Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008)), and Dataphase
Sys., Inc., v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir.
1981).
2

Report and Recommendation on dispositive motions and prisoner
petitions, where objections are made as follows:
The district judge to whom the case is
assigned shall make a de novo determination
upon the record, or after additional
evidence, of any portion of the magistrate
judge’s disposition to which specific
written
objection
has
been
made
in
accordance with this rule.
The district
judge may accept, reject, or modify the
recommendation decision, receive further
evidence, or recommit the matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions.
FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).
As

mentioned,

no

objections

to

the

Report

and

Recommendation have been filed; and it appears to the Court
upon review of Chief Magistrate Judge Zoss’s findings and
conclusions that there are no grounds to reject or modify
them.
IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY ORDERED that this Court accepts
Chief

Magistrate

(Docket No. 33).

Judge

Zoss’s

Report

and

Recommendation

The plaintiff’s motion for preliminary

injunction (Docket No. 20) is hereby denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of April, 2012.

__________________________________
Donald E. O’Brien, Senior Judge
United States District Court
Northern District of Iowa
3