Doyle v. McConagha et al

Filing 13

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - IT IS RECOMMENDED that the preliminary injunctive relief sought be denied. Objections to R&R due by 2/8/2007. Signed by Judge Michael R Merz on 1/22/07. (dp1 )

Download PDF
Doyle v. McConagha et al Doc. 13 Case 3:07-cv-00003-TMR-MRM Document 13 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON WAYNE DOYLE, Plaintiff, -vs: CLARK COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY, et al., Defendants. : Case No. 3:07-cv-003 District Judge Thomas M. Rose Chief Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION This case was set for hearing on Plaintiff's request for preliminary injunctive relief at 9:30 A.M. on Monday, January 22, 2007. Notice of the hearing had been given to the parties in writing as part of the Report and Recommendations (Doc. No. 5). Defendant John McConagha was present in person and he and the Clark County Public Library were represented by attorney Lauren Ross, their trial attorney in this case. Plaintiff, however, did not appear, despite having been advised by the Court's staff on Friday, January 19, 2007, that the hearing was still scheduled and that he was required to appear. The burden of proving entitlement to preliminary injunctive relief is, of course, on the party seeking that relief. Because Plaintiff failed to proceed as scheduled, there is no more evidence before the Court supporting preliminary injunctive relief now than there was when the motion for temporary restraining order was heard. On the same basis as given for that request, the Magistrate 1 Case 3:07-cv-00003-TMR-MRM Document 13 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 2 of 2 Judge respectfully recommends that preliminary injunctive relief be denied. January 22, 2007. s/ Michael R. Merz Chief United States Magistrate Judge NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within ten days after being served with this Report and Recommendations. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e), this period is automatically extended to thirteen days (excluding intervening Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) because this Report is being served by one of the methods of service listed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(B), (C), or (D) and may be extended further by the Court on timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report and Recommendations are based in whole or in part upon matters occurring of record at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such portions of it as all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party's objections within ten days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See United States v. Walters, 638 F. 2d 947 (6th Cir., 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1985). 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?