Filed: Dec. 12, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 13-15214 Date Filed: 12/12/2013 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 13-15214 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 2:13-cv-00663-MEF-TFM JAMES HALL, N.C. CLINT MOSER, JR., Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus SECRETARY OF STATE, STATE OF ALABAMA, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama _ (December 12, 2013) Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:
Summary: Case: 13-15214 Date Filed: 12/12/2013 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 13-15214 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 2:13-cv-00663-MEF-TFM JAMES HALL, N.C. CLINT MOSER, JR., Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus SECRETARY OF STATE, STATE OF ALABAMA, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama _ (December 12, 2013) Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: ..
More
Case: 13-15214 Date Filed: 12/12/2013 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 13-15214 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:13-cv-00663-MEF-TFM JAMES HALL, N.C. CLINT MOSER, JR., Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus SECRETARY OF STATE, STATE OF ALABAMA, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama _____________________________ (December 12, 2013) Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 13-15214 Date Filed: 12/12/2013 Page: 2 of 2 We affirm the District Court’s denial of appellants’ motion for a preliminary injunction 1on the grounds that the injury to the public from the issuance of an injunction would far outweigh any injury appellants might suffer. AFFIRMED. 1 The District Court also denied appellants’ motion for a temporary restraining order. That motion sought the same relief as the motion for a preliminary injunction; the two motions therefore merged. 2
