Easterling v. Lakefront Lines, Inc.

Filing 21

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1 THAT PLAINTIFFS SECOND MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DOC. 20 ) BE DENIED- This civil case is before the Court on pro se Plaintiffs second motion for a preliminary injunction. Doc. 20 . For the reasons set forth by the undersigned in the Report and Recommendation recommending denial of Plaintiffs first motion for a preliminary injunction (doc. 6 ), and for the reasons set forth by Judge Rice in adopting the undersigneds recommendation and denying Plaintiffs fi rst motion for a preliminary injunction (doc. 18 ), the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs second motion for a preliminary injunction be DENIED. Objections to R&R due by 5/30/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman on 5/16/18. (kma)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
WARREN EASTERLING,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:18-cv-75

vs.
LAKEFRONT LINES, INC.,

District Judge Walter H. Rice
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1 THAT PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION FOR
A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DOC. 20) BE DENIED
______________________________________________________________________________
This civil case is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s second motion for a preliminary
injunction.

Doc. 20.

For the reasons set forth by the undersigned in the Report and

Recommendation recommending denial of Plaintiff’s first motion for a preliminary injunction
(doc. 6), and for the reasons set forth by Judge Rice in adopting the undersigned’s recommendation
and denying Plaintiff’s first motion for a preliminary injunction (doc. 18), the undersigned
RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s second motion for a preliminary injunction be DENIED.

Date:

May 16, 2018

1

s/ Michael J. Newman
Michael J. Newman
United States Magistrate Judge

Attached hereto is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and
Recommendation.

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 FOURTEEN days after being served with
this Report and Recommendation. This period is not extended by virtue of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) if
served on you by electronic means, such as via the Court’s CM/ECF filing system. If, however,
this Report and Recommendation was served upon you by mail, this deadline is extended to
SEVENTEEN DAYS by application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). Parties may seek an extension of the
deadline to file objections by filing a motion for extension, which the Court may grant upon a
showing of good cause.
Any objections filed shall specify the portions of the Report and Recommendation objected
to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report
and Recommendation is 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 FOURTEEN days after being
served with a copy thereof. As noted above, this period is not extended by virtue of Fed. R. Civ.
P. 6(d) if served on you by electronic means, such as via the Court’s CM/ECF filing system. If,
however, this Report and Recommendation was served upon you by mail, this deadline is extended
to SEVENTEEN DAYS by application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).
Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal.
See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50
(6th Cir. 1981).