Vick v. Core Civic et al

Filing 78

ORDER: Having fully considered Plaintiff's objections, the Court concludes they are without merit, and that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted and approved. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. No. 49) is DENIED. Signed by District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr on 4/15/19. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail. ) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(am)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
COLUMBIA DIVISION

JASPER LEE VICK,
Plaintiff,
v.

CORE CIVIC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 1:18-cv-00003
JUDGE CAMPBELL
MAGISTRATE JUDGE FRENSLEY

ORDER
Pending before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No.
59), recommending the Court deny “Plaintiff’s Motion for an Pleminary [sic] Injunction and a
Temporary Restraining Order” (Doc. No. 49). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge applied the
relevant factors and determined Plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunctive relief should be
denied.
In response, Plaintiff has filed a “Certificate of Consultation” (Doc. No. 60); Defendant has
filed a Response (Doc. No. 61); and Plaintiff has filed a Reply (Doc. No. 62). The Court will
construe Plaintiff’s filings as objections to the Report and Recommendation.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.02, a district court reviews de novo any
portion of a report and recommendation to which a specific objection is made. United States v.
Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir. 2001). General or conclusory objections are insufficient. See
Zimmerman v. Cason, 354 F. Appx. 228, 230 (6th Cir. 2009). Thus, “only those specific objections
to the magistrate’s report made to the district court will be preserved for appellate review.” Id.
(quoting Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987)). In conducting

the review, the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Through his filings, Plaintiff claims that, while his motion was pending, Defendant Petra
Lineberry refused to mail legal documents on two separate occasions and otherwise impaired his
ability to access the courts. To the extent Plaintiff describes this incident to bolster his argument that
irreparable harm exists, the Court is not persuaded that the addition of this incident to his request
warrants the issuance of injunctive relief. As the Magistrate Judge concluded, Plaintiff’s failure to
demonstrate a strong likelihood of success on the merits of his claims weighs heavily against the
issuance of injunctive relief. 1 Plaintiff’s filings fail to state viable grounds to challenge the
conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, or otherwise provide a basis to reject or modify the Report and
Recommendation.
Having fully considered Plaintiff’s objections, the Court concludes they are without merit,
and that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted and approved. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
Motion (Doc. No. 49) is DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.

_______________________________
WILLIAM L. CAMPBELL, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to add this incident as a claim in this case, he is expected to file an
appropriate motion requesting leave to do so.
2