Wilson v. Ebbert, 1:18-cv-1965. (2019)
Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20190403h51
Visitors: 10
Filed: Apr. 02, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 02, 2019
Summary: ORDER SYLVIA H. RAMBO , District Judge . Before the Court disposition is Magistrate Judge Carlson's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 33), which recommends denying Plaintiff Terrell Wilson's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 14). Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by March 20, 2019, but no such objections have been filed. 1 In considering whether to adopt the Report and Recommendation, the Court should, as a matter of good practice, "satisfy itself that ther
Summary: ORDER SYLVIA H. RAMBO , District Judge . Before the Court disposition is Magistrate Judge Carlson's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 33), which recommends denying Plaintiff Terrell Wilson's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 14). Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by March 20, 2019, but no such objections have been filed. 1 In considering whether to adopt the Report and Recommendation, the Court should, as a matter of good practice, "satisfy itself that there..
More
ORDER
SYLVIA H. RAMBO, District Judge.
Before the Court disposition is Magistrate Judge Carlson's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 33), which recommends denying Plaintiff Terrell Wilson's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 14). Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by March 20, 2019, but no such objections have been filed.1
In considering whether to adopt the Report and Recommendation, the Court should, as a matter of good practice, "satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 702 F.Supp.2d 465, 469 (M.D. Pa. 2010) (explaining that judges should review dispositive legal issues raised by the report for clear error). Following an independent review of the record, the Court is satisfied that the Report and Recommendation contains no clear error, and will therefore adopt the Report and Recommendation to deny Wilson's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 33) is ADOPTED; and
2. The Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 14) is DENIED.
FootNotes
1. On March 13, 2019, Wilson filed his brief in opposition (Doc. No. 34) to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 24), and Defendants filed their reply brief on March 27, 2019 (Doc. No. 35). These documents, however, have no relevance to Magistrate Judge Carlson's Report and Recommendation regarding Wilson's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.
Source: Leagle
