Folsom v. Knutson et al

Filing 104

ORDER denying 40 Motion for TRO; denying 40 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 52 Untitled Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief; denying 60 Motion for TRO; denying 60 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; adopting Report and Recommendations re 102 Report and Recommendation.. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 9/10/2014. (mb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
GLEN FOLSOM,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARK KNUTSON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-13-632-D

ORDER
Plaintiff Glen Folsom, a state prisoner appearing pro se, brings this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his federal constitutional rights. In accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), the matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge
Charles B. Goodwin for initial proceedings. In a Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 102]
issued on August 12, 2014, the Magistrate Judge recommended denying three motions filed by
Plaintiff [Doc. Nos. 40, 52 and 60] pursuant to which Plaintiff seeks preliminary injunctive relief.
As more fully set forth in the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff claims that during his
incarceration at various facilities he has been subjected to harassment and retaliation by prison staff
and inmates, faced life-threatening situations, had difficulty obtaining proper treatment for his
mental health issues and been denied access to legal resources. The Magistrate Judge recommended
denying Plaintiff’s requests for injunctive relief because Plaintiff has not satisfied the procedural
requirements for such relief and has failed to demonstrate that he will suffer irreparable harm if such
relief were not granted.
The Magistrate Judge specifically advised the parties of their right to object to the findings
and recommendations set forth therein. He further advised the parties that failure to timely object

would constitute a waiver of their right to appellate review of the factual and legal matters in the
Report and Recommendation. The parties’ deadline for filing objections was September 2, 2014.
To date, the parties have not filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation or sought
an extension of time in which to do so.

Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and

Recommendation in its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 102] is
ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiff’s motions [Doc. Nos. 40, 52 and 60] are DENIED. The case
shall proceed before Magistrate Judge Goodwin pursuant to the initial case referral.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of September, 2014.

2