Warner v. Curry et al

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING 7 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full; denying 6 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 11/14/2017. Mailed to Warner (TAG)

Download PDF
FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION DANNY LEE WARNER, NOV 1 4 2017 Clerk, U.S Oiltrict Court District Of Montane Missoula CV 17-104-M-DLC-JCL Plaintiff, ORDER vs. CHUCK CURRY, JENNIFER ROOT, JAMES DUSING, TAMMY BOWEN, SGT. SCHUELEN, and CBM MANAGED SERVICES, Defendants. United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch entered Findings and Recommendations in this case on August 29, 2017, recommending that Plaintiff Danny Lee Warner's ("Warner") motion for injunctive relief and motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction be denied. W amer timely filed objections to the findings and recommendations. Consequently, Warner is entitled to de novo review of those findings and recommendations to which he specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b )(1 )(C). This Court reviews for clear error those findings and recommendations to which no party objects. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. -1- 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Clear error exists ifthe Court is left with a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d 422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). Judge Lynch concluded, and this Court agrees, that Warner's motion for injunctive relief is without merit. Warner's objection fails to present any new evidence and reiterates the same facts and arguments already made and properly rejected by Judge Lynch. A preliminary injunction will not be granted unless the plaintiff can establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). While Warner's objection states that he is in desperate need of a pair of prescription eyeglasses, he does not present any evidence related to this need. (Doc. 9 at 1.) The attached grievance forms only pertain to his complaints of moldy food, rotten milk, and raw eggs, and these grievances were resolved by the Flathead County Detention Center. (Doc. 9-1.) Thus, Warner has not plausibly demonstrated the four factors for a Fourteenth Amendment claim for denial of medical treatment. Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2473 (2015). Consequently, no injunctive relief is warranted. -2- Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Judge Lynch's Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 7) are ADOPTED IN FULL. Warner's motion for injunctive relief as contained in his Complaint (Doc. 2 at 7-8) and motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunctive (Doc. 6) are DENIED. -Kt DATED this 11._ day ofNovember, 2017. ' Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge United States District Court -3-

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?