REEVES v. HARRINGTON, 13-cv-01171-JPG-PMF. (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20150518822
Visitors: 4
Filed: May 15, 2015
Latest Update: May 15, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER J. PHIL GILBERT , District Judge . This matter comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") (Doc. 151) of Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier with regard to Plaintiff's Motions for Injunctive Relief as follows: Doc. 113 — Motion for Injunction against Menard Law Library and Health Care Unit; Doc. 116 — Motion for Injunction against Menard Law Library; Doc. 119 — Motion to See Outside Doctor; Doc. 123 — Motion for Injunction against Menard Health
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER J. PHIL GILBERT , District Judge . This matter comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") (Doc. 151) of Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier with regard to Plaintiff's Motions for Injunctive Relief as follows: Doc. 113 — Motion for Injunction against Menard Law Library and Health Care Unit; Doc. 116 — Motion for Injunction against Menard Law Library; Doc. 119 — Motion to See Outside Doctor; Doc. 123 — Motion for Injunction against Menard Health ..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. PHIL GILBERT, District Judge.
This matter comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") (Doc. 151) of Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier with regard to Plaintiff's Motions for Injunctive Relief as follows:
Doc. 113 — Motion for Injunction against Menard Law Library and Health Care Unit;
Doc. 116 — Motion for Injunction against Menard Law Library;
Doc. 119 — Motion to See Outside Doctor;
Doc. 123 — Motion for Injunction against Menard Health Care Unit;
Doc. 124 — Motion for Injunction against Menard Trust Fund Officer;
Doc. 125 — Motion for Injunction against Menard Health Care Unit;
Doc. 126 — Motion for Stay Regarding Prisoner Payments;
Doc. 134 — Motion for Injunction against Menard law Library; and
Doc. 135 — Motion for Injunction against Menard Law Library.
There were no objections to the R & R by either party. The Court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations of the magistrate judge in a report and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court must review de novo the portions of the report to which objections are made. The Court has discretion to conduct a new hearing and may consider the record before the magistrate judge anew or receive any further evidence deemed necessary. Id. "If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error." Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). The Court has received no objection to the R & R. The Court has reviewed the entire file and finds that the R & R is not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 151) in its entirety and DENIES the following motions:
Doc. 113 — Motion for Injunction against Menard Law Library and Health Care Unit;
Doc. 116 — Motion for Injunction against Menard Law Library;
Doc. 119 — Motion to See Outside Doctor;
Doc. 123 — Motion for Injunction against Menard Health Care Unit;
Doc. 124 — Motion for Injunction against Menard Trust Fund Officer;
Doc. 125 — Motion for Injunction against Menard Health Care Unit;
Doc. 126 — Motion for Stay Regarding Prisoner Payments;
Doc. 134 — Motion for Injunction against Menard law Library; and
Doc. 135 — Motion for Injunction against Menard Law Library.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
