Shabazz v. Schofield et al

Filing 205

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: This matter is before the Court upon the pro se prisoner Plaintiffs "Supplemental Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction." Docket No. 66. The matters raised in the instant Motion are essentially identical to those raised in Plaintiff's previously-filed "Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction." Docket No. 44. The undersigned has recommended that the previous Motion be DENIED. Docke t No. 204. For the reasons set forth in the Court's referenced Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 204), the instant Motion should also be DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 2/19/2014. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh)

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

OMOWALE ASAHANTI SHABAZZ,
Plaintiff,

vs.

DERRICK SCHOFIELD, et al.,
Defendants.

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

CASE NO. 3:13-00091
JUDGE SHARP/KNOWLES
JURY DEMAND

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court upon the pro se prisoner Plaintiff’s “Supplemental Motion
for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.” Docket No. 66.
The matters raised in the instant Motion are essentially identical to those raised in
Plaintiff’s previously-filed “Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary
Injunction.” Docket No. 44. The undersigned has recommended that the previous Motion be
DENIED. Docket No. 204.
For the reasons set forth in the Court’s referenced Report and Recommendation (Docket
No. 204), the instant Motion should also be DENIED.
Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any party has fourteen (14)
days after service 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
fourteen (14) days after service of any objections filed to this Report in which to file any

response to said objections. Failure to file specific objections within fourteen (14) days of
service of this Report and Recommendation can constitute a waiver of further appeal of this
Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1985),
reh’g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

E. Clifton Knowles
United States Magistrate Judge

2