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)

Download PDF
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

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?