Njos v. United States Of America et al

Filing 72

ORDER: (1) The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson filed on September 2, 2015 (Doc. 56 ) is ADOPTED; and, (2) The Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 14 ) is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Edwin M. Kosik on 9/29/2015. (emksec, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
_______________________________
:
SCOTT NJOS,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-1960
v.
:
:
(Judge Kosik)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
:
:
Defendant.
:
_______________________________
ORDER
AND NOW, THIS 29th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015, IT APPEARING TO THE
COURT THAT:
(1) Plaintiff, Scott Njos, an inmate confined at the United States Penitentiary at
Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, filed the instant action against the United States of
America and Bureau of Prisons based on the alleged negligent psychological care he
is receiving;
(2) On February 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and
Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 14) and supporting documents;
(3) A Brief in Opposition to the Motion (Doc. 22) was filed on March 11, 2015;
(4) On September 2, 2015, Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson filed a Report
and Recommendation (Doc. 56), wherein he recommended that the Motion for
Preliminary Injunction/Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 14) be denied;
(5) In reviewing the requirements for preliminary injunctive relief, the
Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff had not made the showing required by Fed. R.
Civ. P. 65 to warrant this extraordinary form of relief;
(6) No Objections were filed to the Report and Recommendation;
AND, IT FURTHER APPEARING THAT:

(7) If no objections are filed to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, the plaintiff is not statutorily entitled to a de novo review of his
claims. 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-53 (1985).
Nonetheless, the usual practice of the district court is to give “reasoned
consideration” to a magistrate judge’s report prior to adopting it. Henderson v.
Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987);
(8) We have reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge and we agree with his conclusions that injunctive relief is not warranted in this
case;
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
(1) The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson
filed on September 2, 2015 (Doc. 56) is ADOPTED; and,
(2) The Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining
Order (Doc. 14) is DENIED.

s/Edwin M. Kosik
Edwin M. Kosik
United States District Judge