Hamby v. Gentry et al
Filing
18
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Therefore, the motion for a preliminary injunction should be DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 6/27/13. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(tmw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
WILLIAM DAVIDSON HAMBY, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
v.
BETH GENTRY, et al.,
Defendants,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:12-CV-01296
Judge Sharp/Bryant
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is on referral to the undersigned for, inter alia, pretrial management of the
case, including recommendation for ruling on any dispositive motions (Docket Entry No. 3).
Plaintiff William Davidson Hamby, Jr., filed a “Motion to File Tort Against Defendants,”
essentially seeking a preliminary injunction to freeze the assets of the defendants (See Docket
Entry No. 16). Defendants Beth Gentry and Sheriff Daron Hall filed a response opposing the
injunction (Docket Entry No. 17). For the reasons stated below, the undersigned Magistrate
Judge recommends that the plaintiff’s be DENIED.
In considering whether to issue a preliminary injunction, a court considers the following
four factors: “(1) whether the movant has a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2)
whether the movant would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not issued; (3) whether the
issuance of the injunction would cause substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the public
interest would be served by issuing the injunction.” Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban
County Gov’t, 305 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). None of the four factors is
a prerequisite, but the factors are to be balanced against one another. Id. “A preliminary
1
injunction is an extraordinary remedy which should be granted only if the movant carries his or
her burden of proving that the circumstances clearly demand it.” Id.
Here, regardless of whether the plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state a claim
against these defendants, the plaintiff has not alleged or submitted any evidence warranting a
preliminary injunction. The bald allegation that the defendants have previously attempted to
hide assets is entirely insufficient to demonstrate a need for a preliminary injunction. The
plaintiff has not alleged or submitted any evidence demonstrating he has a strong likelihood of
success on the merits of his constitutional claims, that he would be harmed in the absence of an
injunction or that an injunction would benefit the public interest. Therefore, the motion for a
preliminary injunction should be DENIED.
Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any party has 14 days from
receipt of this Report and Recommendation in which to file any written objections to this
Recommendation with the District Court. Any party opposing said objections shall have 14 days
from receipt of any objections filed in this Report in which to file any responses to said
objections. Failure to file specific objections within 14 days of receipt of this Report and
Recommendation can constitute a waiver of further appeal of this Recommendation. Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985), Reh’g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986).
ENTER this 27th day of June, 2013.
s/ John S. Bryant
JOHN S. BRYANT
United States Magistrate 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?