Balcar v. Smith et al
Filing
94
ORDER Signed by Judge David J. Hale on 11/20/2017 adopting Report and Recommendations re 87 Report and Recommendations. Plaintiffs motions for preliminary injunctive relief (DNs 6, 15, 24, 41, 64 & 69) are DENIED. cc: Counsel, Pro Se Pla.(ARM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
YALE LARRY BALCAR,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-P1-DJH
KENTUCKY STATE REFORMATORY et al.,
Defendants.
* * * * *
ORDER
This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Colin H. Lindsay for Report and
Recommendation regarding Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief. Judge Lindsay
entered his Report and Recommendation on September 21, 2017 (Docket No. 87),
recommending denial of the motions. The time for objections to the magistrate judge’s Report
and Recommendation has now run, with no objections filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
Because no party has objected to the Report and Recommendation, the Court may adopt
them without review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that
Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate[ judge’s] factual or legal
conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those
findings.”). Nevertheless, the Court has conducted its own review of the record and finds no
error in the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, and the Court being
otherwise sufficiently advised, it is hereby
ORDERED as follows:
(1)
The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lindsay (DN 87) is
ADOPTED in full and INCORPORATED herein by reference.
(2)
Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief (DNs 6, 15, 24, 41, 64 & 69)
are DENIED.
Date:
November 20, 2017
David J. Hale, Judge
United States District Court
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
Counsel of Record
4415.005
2
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?