Thompson v. Dooley et al

Filing 96

ORDER adopting 94 Report and Recommendation; denying as moot 41 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier on 8/25/17. (SLW)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION TERRY L. THOMPSON, 4:16-CV-04071-KES Plaintiff, vs. JOSH KLIMEK, Unit Manager; DIANE ROMKEMA, Case Manager; JERRAME LARSEN, D-H-O Hearing Officer; and LEE KAUFENBERG, Correctional Officer, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Defendants. Plaintiff, Terry L. Thompson, filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Veronica Duffy under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for a report and recommendation on several motions, including Thompson’s motion for preliminary injunction asking for an injunction requiring defendants to return two boxes of his property to him. (Docket 41). On August 7, 2017, the magistrate judge submitted her report and recommended that Thompson’s motion for a preliminary injunction be denied as moot. Thompson was notified in the report and recommendation that he had 14 days to file objections to the report. The deadline for objections was August 24, 2017. No objections were filed by August 24, 2017. Even though no objections were filed that would require de novo review under Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356 (8th Cir. 1990), the court reviewed the matter de novo and finds that the magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted in full. Therefore, it is ORDERED that: 1. The report and recommendation of the magistrate judge (Docket 94) is adopted in full. 2. Thompson’s motion for temporary preliminary injunction (Docket 41) is DENIED as moot. Dated August 25, 2017. BY THE COURT: /s/ Karen E. Schreier KAREN E. SCHREIER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?