Smith v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 26 of Magistrate Judge Charles B. Goodwin...the court denies plaintiff's petition for emergency injunction 11 and motion for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order 12 ; as the magistrate judge noted, the Report and Recommendation did not terminate the referral. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 3/6/2017. (cla)
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Plaintiff, a state prisoner appearing pro se, filed this action under the Religious Land
Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), challenging an Oklahoma
Department of Corrections’ policy governing inmates’ access to religious meals and items.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636, the matter was referred for initial proceedings to Magistrate
Judge Charles B. Goodwin for initial proceedings. He has recommended that a petition for
emergency injunction and a motion for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining
order be construed as motions for preliminary injunctions and be denied.
Plaintiff failed to object to the Report and Recommendation and thereby waived his
right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues it addressed. Casanova v. Ulibarri,
595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010); see 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(C).
Accordingly, the court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Goodwin’s Report and
Recommendation and DENIES plaintiff’s petition for emergency injunction [Doc. #11]
and motion for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order [Doc. #12], which
have been construed as motions for preliminary injunctions.
As the magistrate judge noted, the Report and Recommendation did not terminate
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 6th day of March, 2017.
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?