DALE v. TYLER, CIV 14-4102. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. South Dakota
Number: infdco20151222f22
Visitors: 23
Filed: Dec. 21, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 21, 2015
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE L. PIERSOL , District Judge . Plaintiff James Irving Dale, an inmate at the South Dakota State Penitentiary, has filed a civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. In that action Mr. Dale has now filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Doc. 43, in which he states that several documents were taken by the Defendants, and he is asking the Court to order Defendants to return those items. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, Doc. 46, recommending Mr.
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE L. PIERSOL , District Judge . Plaintiff James Irving Dale, an inmate at the South Dakota State Penitentiary, has filed a civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. In that action Mr. Dale has now filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Doc. 43, in which he states that several documents were taken by the Defendants, and he is asking the Court to order Defendants to return those items. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, Doc. 46, recommending Mr. ..
More
ORDER
LAWRENCE L. PIERSOL, District Judge.
Plaintiff James Irving Dale, an inmate at the South Dakota State Penitentiary, has filed a civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In that action Mr. Dale has now filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Doc. 43, in which he states that several documents were taken by the Defendants, and he is asking the Court to order Defendants to return those items. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, Doc. 46, recommending Mr. Dale's motion be denied. Plaintiff James Dale has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. This Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Duffy did not confuse the various cases of Plaintiff Dale. In addition, the preliminary injunction is not being denied because of any inability to provide monetary security. After conducting a de novo review of the record, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. That the Report and Recommendation, Doc. 46, is ADOPTED by the Court and Plaintiff's Objections to the Report and Recommendation, Doc. 47, are DENIED.
2. That the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Doc. 43, is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
