Nathan v. Wilkerson County Correctional Facility et al

Filing 38

ORDER adopting 30 Report and Recommendation and denying 28 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by District Judge Halil S. Ozerden on December 30, 2013. (NM)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
SHELDON NATHAN

§
§
v.
§
§
WILKINSON COUNTY
§
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,
§
TIMOTHY MORRIS, LINDA
§
HARDIN, ANGIE HALLOWAY
§
JANITA BIVENS, JANE DOES, AND §
THEIR LIABILITY INSURERS, AND §
JOHN DOES, AND THEIR
§
LIABILITY INSURERS
§

PETITIONER
CIVIL NO. 5:13cv96-HSO-RHW
RESPONDENT

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
BEFORE THE COURT is the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker [30] entered on November 14, 2013. Also before
the Court is the Plaintiff Sheldon Nathan’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Preliminary
Injunction [28] seeking an order that he be transferred to the Central Mississippi
Correctional Facility and placed in a single-person cell. Mot. for Prelim. Inj. 2. The
Magistrate Judge concluded Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction should be
denied because the Motion was factually indistinct from a prior Motion [12] filed by
Plaintiff requesting a preliminary injunction for “adequate protection and safe
housing,” which was denied by Order [20] dated October 1, 2013, on the basis that
Plaintiff failed to establish he was entitled to relief under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 65. The Court has closely reviewed the findings in the Report and
Recommendation, the record, and the position Plaintiff advances in the Motion [28],
1

and concludes that the Motion should be denied for the reasons set forth in the
Report and Recommendation [30].
To date, no objection to the Report and Recommendation has been filed by
Plaintiff.1 Where no party has objected to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, a court need not conduct a de novo review of it. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) (“[A] judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which
objection is made.”). In such cases, the Court need only review the proposed
findings of fact and recommendation and determine whether it is either clearly
erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.
1989).
Having conducted the required review, the Court finds that the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation thoroughly considered all issues and is neither
clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The Court, being fully advised in the
premises, finds that the Magistrate Judge properly recommended that Plaintiff’s
Motion for Preliminary Injunction should be denied. The Report and
Recommendation should be adopted as the opinion of this Court.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report and
Recommendation [30] of Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker entered on November
14, 2013, is adopted as the finding of this Court.
As of November 20, 2013, Plaintiff had signed for receipt of the Report and
Recommendation [31].
1

2

IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion
for Preliminary Injunction [28] filed October 23, 2013, is DENIED.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 30th day of December, 2013.

s/ Halil Suleyman Ozerden
HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3