Hines v. Allbaugh et al

Filing 67

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 46 Report and Recommendation, 23 Motion for TRO, Plaintiffs Motion for TemporaryRestraining Order (Doc. No. 23) is hereby DENIED. Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 2/17/18. (jw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
THURMAN HARVEY HINES,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOE ALLBAUGH, et. al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-17-642-R

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s timely objection (Doc. No. 47) to the Report and
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin (Doc. No. 46), wherein Judge Erwin
recommends the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. No.
23). The Court has conducted the requisite de novo review of the matter in light of
Plaintiff’s objection, and finds that Plaintiff is not entitled to a temporary restraining order
or a preliminary injunction as set forth in the Report and Recommendation.1 It appears
from the initial motion that the relief Plaintiff seeks via the motion is transfer to North Fork
Correctional Center, as well as a request to require that prison officials stop allegedly
unconstitutional practices and to establish certain programs or practices. The motion,
however, fails to meet the heavy burden required to entitle him to preliminary injunctive
relief. Although Plaintiff may ultimately prevail on his claims that certain conditions of his

1
The Court notes at the outset, that to the extent Plaintiff’s objection references his amended complaint, filed on
November 21, 2017, this reliance is inappropriate, as the Report and Recommendation was issued on the same date
as the filing of the amended complaint. The Court further notes that it grants liberal construction to Plaintiff’s pro se
pleadings in accordance with Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), however, the Court will not craft arguments for
Plaintiff.

confinement are unconstitutional, which may entitled him to prospective injunctive relief
at that time, as of this juncture he has not established that he is entitled to such relief or that
the Report and Recommendation is in error. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order (Doc. No. 23) is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of February 2018.

2