Anderson v. Commissioner Tennessee Department of Corrections et al

Filing 51

ORDER: On November 30, 2011, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation ("R & R") (Docket No. 34), recommending that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 13) be denied because Plaintiff has failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim that he has been deprived of adequate medical care, and has failed to show that the failure to issue an injunction will cause him irreparable harm. Despite being specifically advised in the R & R that any objections to the R & R were to be filed within fourteen days, Plaintiff has filed no objections. Having reviewed the matter in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Accord ingly, (1) The R & R (Docket No. 34) is hereby ACCEPTED and APPROVED; (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 13) is hereby DENIED; and (3) This case is returned to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial case management. It is SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 1/9/12. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(af)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
TREVOR MANNY ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,

v.
COMMISSIONER TENNESSEE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:11-0806
Judge Sharp

ORDER
On November 30, 2011, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”)
(Docket No. 34), recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 13) be denied
because Plaintiff has failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim that he has been
deprived of adequate medical care, and has failed to show that the failure to issue an injunction will cause him
irreparable harm. Despite being specifically advised in the R & R that any objections to the R & R were to
be filed within fourteen days, Plaintiff has filed no objections.
Having reviewed the matter in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. Accordingly,
(1) The R & R (Docket No. 34) is hereby ACCEPTED and APPROVED;
(2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 13) is hereby DENIED; and
(3) This case is returned to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial case management.
It is SO ORDERED.

____________________________________
KEVIN H. SHARP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE