Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Alves v. Ferguson, 01-789 (SDW)(MCA). (2018)

Court: District Court, D. New Jersey Number: infdco20180802b48 Visitors: 10
Filed: Aug. 01, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 01, 2018
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION LETTER OPINION FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT SUSAN D. WIGENTON , District Judge . Litigants: Before this Court are Plaintiff Joseph Aruanno's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction and Motion for Appointment of a Special Master. This Court having considered the parties' submissions and having reached its decision without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78, and for the reasons discussed below, denies Plaintif
More

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

LETTER OPINION FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT

Litigants:

Before this Court are Plaintiff Joseph Aruanno's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction and Motion for Appointment of a Special Master. This Court having considered the parties' submissions and having reached its decision without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78, and for the reasons discussed below, denies Plaintiff's motions.

DISCUSSION

On August 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed motions for Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction and for Appointment of a Special Master. (Dkt. No. 290.) On February 20, 2018, this Court denied Plaintiff's motions, noting that Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim or irreparable harm if the relief he sought was denied. (Dkt. No. 301, 302.) This Court further held that Plaintiff had not identified any "exceptional condition" requiring the appointment of a special master in this case.

Plaintiff's current motions are identical to those he filed on August 16, 2017. (Compare Dkt. No. 290 to 307.)1 Therefore, for the reasons set forth in this Court's February 20, 2018 Letter Opinion and Order, Plaintiff's motions will be denied.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of a Special Master is also DENIED. Plaintiff is ordered to cease filing motions in Civil Action Number 01-789 and Civil Action Number 04-3066, both of which are closed cases.

An appropriate Order will follow.

FootNotes


1. The only discernable difference in the motions involve slight changes to what appears to be a cover letter to the Court. (Compare Dkt No. 290-4 to 307-4.)
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer