Alverson v. Mills, 2:18cv61-MHT. (2018)
Court: District Court, M.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20180625557
Visitors: 24
Filed: Jun. 22, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 22, 2018
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER MYRON H. THOMPSON , District Judge . Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed this lawsuit contending that the defendant correctional officers and officials transferred him to Easterling Correctional Facility in retaliation for his litigation activities. He filed two motions for preliminary injunction: the first seeks an order requiring defendants to allow him to work in a furniture plant, which would require him to be moved to another prison; the s
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER MYRON H. THOMPSON , District Judge . Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed this lawsuit contending that the defendant correctional officers and officials transferred him to Easterling Correctional Facility in retaliation for his litigation activities. He filed two motions for preliminary injunction: the first seeks an order requiring defendants to allow him to work in a furniture plant, which would require him to be moved to another prison; the se..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
MYRON H. THOMPSON, District Judge.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed this lawsuit contending that the defendant correctional officers and officials transferred him to Easterling Correctional Facility in retaliation for his litigation activities. He filed two motions for preliminary injunction: the first seeks an order requiring defendants to allow him to work in a furniture plant, which would require him to be moved to another prison; the second motion seeks an order requiring the commissioner of the Department of Corrections, within 30 days, to reduce the number of prisoners and hire more correctional officers at Easterling Correctional Facility to provide better security. This case is before the court on the recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge that the plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunction be denied. There are no objections to the recommendation. Upon an independent and de novo review of the record, the court concludes that the recommendation should be adopted.
* * *
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
(1) The recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 47) is adopted.
(2) The motions for preliminary injunction (doc. nos. 14 & 16) are denied.
It is further ORDERED that this case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
Source: Leagle
