Cramer v. Kerestes et al

Filing 39

ORDER adopting 36 Report and Recommendation and denying 14 Motion for a preliminary injunction. Signed by Honorable Edwin M. Kosik on 12/01/2015. (emksec, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
____________________________________
:
WILLIAM CRAMER,
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-1360
v.
:
:
JOHN KERESTES, et al.,
:
(Judge Kosik)
Defendants.
:
____________________________________

ORDER
AND NOW, THIS 1st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015, IT APPEARING TO THE COURT
THAT:
[1] Plaintiff, William Cramer, a state prisoner, filed the instant complaint under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (Doc. 1), on July 13, 2015;
[2] On August 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed, what we liberally construe as, a motion for a
preliminary injunction, and supporting documents (Docs. 14-16). Defendants responded by
filing a motion to strike Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 17), which the Magistrate Judge denied in a
separate order (Doc. 35);
[3] The action was referred to Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson;
[4] The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 36), on November
3, 2015, recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction be denied without
prejudice;
[5] Specifically, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff did not exhaust his
administrative remedies, as the events alleged in Plaintiff’s motion occurred six days prior to
filing the instant motion. The Magistrate Judge also found that the pending motion to dismiss
raises substantial legal challenges to some or all of Plaintiff’s claims, and that Plaintiff’s motion

for a preliminary injunction involves assessment of the ultimate merits of Plaintiff’s case.
[6] Plaintiff has failed to file timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation;1
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 considered the Magistrate Judge’s report and we concur with his
recommendation. We agree that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction should be
dismissed without prejudice to renewal once Plaintiff has fully exhausted his administrative
remedies.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
[1] The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson dated
November 3, 2015 (Doc. 36) is ADOPTED;
[2] Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 14) is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE; and
[3] The Clerk of Court is directed to FORWARD a copy of this Order to the Magistrate
Judge.
s/Edwin M. Kosik
Edwin M. Kosik
United States District Judge

1

We note that the Report and Recommendation was returned undelivered as “Addressee Temporarily
Absent.” A search of the Department of Corrections inmate locator showed the address for the Plaintiff was correct.