Tankesly v. Corrections Corporation of America et al

Filing 82

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: On September 17, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) (Docket No. 65) on the plaintiff's motions for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (TRO) filed on May 28, 2014 (Docket No. 11 ) and on June 23, 2014 (Docket No. 18 ), as well as the plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 51 ), recommending that all motions be denied. Now pending before the court are Objections to the R&R timely filed by the plaintiff (Docket No. 72) and a response filed by the defendants (Docket No. 79). For the reasons explained more fully in the Memorandum entered contemporaneously herewith, the court finds that the plaintiff's Obj ections lack merit. The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's analysis and recommendation, finding that the plaintiff is not entitled to the issuance of a preliminary injunction or TRO, or to the appointment of counsel. Therefore, the plaintiff's Objections are OVERRULED. It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 10/29/2014. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(eh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
CALVIN TANKESLY, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION
OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:14-cv-00911
Judge Trauger

ORDER
On September 17, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R)
(Docket No. 65) on the plaintiff’s motions for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining
order (TRO) filed on May 28, 2014 (Docket No. 11) and on June 23, 2014 (Docket No. 18), as well
as the plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 51), recommending that all
motions be denied.
Now pending before the court are Objections to the R&R timely filed by the plaintiff (Docket
No. 72) and a response filed by the defendants (Docket No. 79). For the reasons explained more
fully in the Memorandum entered contemporaneously herewith, the court finds that the plaintiff’s
Objections lack merit. The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and recommendation,
finding that the plaintiff is not entitled to the issuance of a preliminary injunction or TRO, or to the
appointment of counsel. Therefore, the plaintiff’s Objections are OVERRULED.
It is so ORDERED.

Aleta A. Trauger
United States District Judge