Rachel v. Troutt et al

Filing 93

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 37 Motion for Order filed by Archie Rachel, 56 Motion for TRO, Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Archie Rachel, 88 Report and Recommendation, 86 Report and Recommendation, 87 Rep ort and Recommendation, 29 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Motion for TRO filed by Archie Rachel, 85 Report and Recommendation, 62 Motion for Order filed by Archie Rachel, 26 Motion for Permanent Injunction filed by Archie Rachel. D oc. No. 85 - Plaintiffs Motion for Emergency Injunction [Doc. No. 26] is DENIED as moot. Doc. No. 86 Plaintiffs Motion for TRO/Injunction [Doc. No. 29] is DENIED. Doc. No. 87 Plaintiffs Motion for Injunction to Prohibit Retaliatory Transfer ofPlaintiff [Doc. No. 37] is DENIED. Doc. No. 88 Plaintiffs Motion for TRO/Injunction [Doc. No. 56] and Motion for Restraining Order [Doc. No. 62] are DENIED. Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 8/16/16. (jw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ARCHIE RACHEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY TROUTT, D.O.; TAMI
GROGAN, Health Services
Administrator; JANET DOWLING,
Warden; GENESE MCCOY,
Administrative Review Authority;
CARL PETTIGREW, President
of the Oklahoma Board of
osteopathic Examiners; ALL SUED
IN BOTH THEIR OFFICIAL AND
INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-15-141-R

ORDER
Before the Court are the Reports and Recommendations of United States
Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin. Doc. Nos. 85-88. No objection to the Reports and
Recommendations have been filed nor have extensions of time in which to object been
sought or granted. Therefore, the Reports and Recommendations are ADOPTED in
their entirety as follows:
Doc. No. 85 - Plaintiff’s Motion for Emergency Injunction [Doc. No. 26] is
DENIED as moot.
Doc. No. 86 – Plaintiff’s Motion for TRO/Injunction [Doc. No. 29] is DENIED.
Doc. No. 87 – Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunction to Prohibit Retaliatory Transfer of
Plaintiff [Doc. No. 37] is DENIED.

Doc. No. 88 – Plaintiff’s Motion for TRO/Injunction [Doc. No. 56] and Motion
for Restraining Order [Doc. No. 62] are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of August, 2016.

2