Byerly v. Ross Correctional Inst. et al

Filing 82

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 81 MOTION for "Permanent-In Junction" "Relief" "Good Cause" F.R.C.P. 65(b)(1)(d) filed by Stephen W. Byerly. It is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion be DENIED. Objections to R&R due by 7/25/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 7/8/2016. (pes)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
STEPHEN W. BYERLY,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Civil Action 2:13-cv-411
Judge Sargus
Magistrate Judge King

ROSS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
et al.,
Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Ross Correctional
Institution, brought this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging that certain prison officials denied him access to the
courts.

Second Amended Complaint, ECF 27. The Court granted

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF 44, on March 10, 2015,
Opinion and Order, ECF No. 65, Judgment, ECF No. 66, and denied
plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 67, on May 28, 2015,
Opinion and Order, ECF No. 68. The United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit affirmed this Court’s judgment. Byerly v. Bradley,
Case No. 15-3735 (6th Cir. Jan. 21, 2016). This matter is now before
the Court on plaintiff’s motion for permanent injunctive relief, filed
on July 5, 2016. “Permanent-InJunction” “Relief” “Good Cause” F.R.C.P.
65(b)(1)(d), ECF No. 81 [sic] (“Plaintiff’s Motion”).
Plaintiff’s Motion appears to relate to the claims previously
asserted and resolved in this action. As noted, final judgment has

1

been entered on those claims and this action is no longer pending.
Under these circumstances, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s
July 5, 2016 “Permanent-InJunction” “Relief” “Good Cause” F.R.C.P.
65(b)(1)(d), ECF No. 81, be DENIED.

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report
and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file
and serve on all parties objections to the Report and Recommendation,
specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part
thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto.
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

28

Response to objections

must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy
thereof.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to
the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to
de novo review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the
decision of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation.
See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of
Teachers, Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States
v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

July 8, 2016

s/Norah McCann King
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge

2