Burnette v. Jones, 16-cv-146-WHA. (2016)
Court: District Court, M.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20160421809
Visitors: 24
Filed: Apr. 20, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 20, 2016
Summary: ORDER W. HAROLD ALBRITTON , Senior District Judge . This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #23), and the Plaintiff's Objection thereto (Doc. #27). Following an independent evaluation and de novo review of the file, the court finds the objection to be without merit. Initially, the Plaintiff objects to the statement in the Recommendation that he is housed in the infirmary at Easterling, when in fact he is housed in the infirmary at Ventress. This
Summary: ORDER W. HAROLD ALBRITTON , Senior District Judge . This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #23), and the Plaintiff's Objection thereto (Doc. #27). Following an independent evaluation and de novo review of the file, the court finds the objection to be without merit. Initially, the Plaintiff objects to the statement in the Recommendation that he is housed in the infirmary at Easterling, when in fact he is housed in the infirmary at Ventress. This i..
More
ORDER
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON, Senior District Judge.
This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #23), and the Plaintiff's Objection thereto (Doc. #27). Following an independent evaluation and de novo review of the file, the court finds the objection to be without merit.
Initially, the Plaintiff objects to the statement in the Recommendation that he is housed in the infirmary at Easterling, when in fact he is housed in the infirmary at Ventress. This is merely a typographical error and in no way affects the findings set forth in the Recommendation that the Plaintiff failed to establish each of the elements necessary for issuance of a preliminary injunction. The remainder of the objection likewise fails to establish his entitlement to preliminary injunctive relief. The court agrees with the conclusion of the Magistrate Judge, and it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. The objection is OVERRULED.
2. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED with the exception of changing Easterling to Ventress, and the motions for preliminary injunction are DENIED.
3. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
Source: Leagle
