Filed: Apr. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 20, 2018
Summary: ORDER SUSAN O. HICKEY , District Judge . Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation filed on February 9, `, by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 49. Plaintiff has filed timely objections. ECF No. 52. The Court finds this matter ripe for consideration. In the Report and Recommendation, Judge Bryant recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 39) be denied. Although Plaintiff has filed
Summary: ORDER SUSAN O. HICKEY , District Judge . Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation filed on February 9, `, by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 49. Plaintiff has filed timely objections. ECF No. 52. The Court finds this matter ripe for consideration. In the Report and Recommendation, Judge Bryant recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 39) be denied. Although Plaintiff has filed o..
More
ORDER
SUSAN O. HICKEY, District Judge.
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation filed on February 9, `, by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 49. Plaintiff has filed timely objections. ECF No. 52. The Court finds this matter ripe for consideration.
In the Report and Recommendation, Judge Bryant recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 39) be denied. Although Plaintiff has filed objections, in the first paragraph of his objections he states as follows:
The Plaintiff concedes that AS WRITTEN his request for a preliminary injunction should be rejected on the grounds that it is excessively complex, makes multiple assumptions and would require an unnecessary level of Court intervention.
ECF No. 52, p. 1. Plaintiff subsequently "concedes that his injunction request was overly specific and taxing" and:
suggests his injunction request be pared back to this minimum:
1. That medical personnel diagnose and treat those symptoms not previously addressed OR provide justification as to why they should not be.
2. That medical personnel provide effective treatment for the Plaintiff's eyes as effective treatment IS KNOWN, and as not doing so may lead to further damage to his vision.
3. That Vowell and Gifford be prohibited, for the duration of this case, from treating the Plaintiff based on prior acts of retaliation and a clear conflict of interest.
ECF No. 52, pp. 5-6.
Upon consideration, the Court finds that it should adopt Judge Bryant's recommendation that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 39) be denied. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's objections to Judge Bryant's Report and Recommendation, but finds that it need not discuss those issues in light of Plaintiff's statement that his Motion for Preliminary Injunction "AS WRITTEN" should be "rejected." Further, insofar as Plaintiff asks the Court to consider an amended request for relief, the Court must decline, as that is not the motion that was considered by Judge Bryant. If Plaintiff wishes for the Court to consider more limited injunctive relief he may so move, but the Court will not evaluate such requests when made in responsive pleadings.
Accordingly, after a de novo review and for the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ADOPTS Judge Bryant's Report and Recommendation insofar as it recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 39) be denied. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 39) is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
