REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

DONALD G. WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge.

This matter has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson by United States District Nancy J. Rosenstengel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), and SDIL-LR 72.1(a) for a Report and Recommendation on a Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiff Willie Mabry (Doc. 3). For the reasons set forth below, it is RECOMMENDED the motion be FOUND MOOT and the Court adopt the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Plaintiff Willie Mabry sustained a serious back injury while deadlifting without a belt at Shawnee Correctional Center on May 18, 2018 (Doc. 1, p. 3). Plaintiff requested medical treatment for his injury on May 23, 2018 (Doc. 1, p. 3). Doctor David examined Plaintiff and diagnosed him with muscle spasms (Doc. 1, p. 3). At some point, Doctor David also ordered an x-ray and diagnosed Plaintiff with arteritis (Doc. 1, p. 3).

Mabry was given pain medication and crutches, both of which proved to be ineffective (Doc. 1, p. 3). He cannot walk, sit, stand, or sleep without experiencing severe pain (Doc. 1, p. 3). Mabry's back pain causes him to lean on his left leg, which is fitted with a rod (Doc. 1, p. 3). This practice has not only exacerbated his back pain but also Mabry caused him to suffer from left leg pain (Doc. 1, p. 3). Mabry alleges he has repeatedly returned to the health care unit in search of a diagnosis and proper treatment, without receiving additional treatment or a treatment plan and was denied a refill of his pain medication (Doc. 1, p. 4).

The Court conducted a preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and Mabry was allowed to proceed one claim of deliberate indifference to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment (Doc. 11). Included with his original Complaint, was the pending motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 3).

Mabry was released from prison on October 5, 2018 (Doc. 33-1).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A preliminary injunction is an "extraordinary and drastic remedy" for which there must be a "clear showing" that Plaintiff is entitled to relief. Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quoting 11A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure §2948 (5th ed. 1995)). The purpose of such an injunction is "to minimize the hardship to the parties pending the ultimate resolution of the lawsuit." Faheem-El v. Klincar, 841 F.2d 712, 717 (7th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating:

Planned Parenthood v. Commissioner of Indiana State Dept. Health, 699 F.3d 962, 972 (7th Cir. 2012).

Because Mabry is no longer incarcerated, his request for a preliminary injunction against the Defendants is moot. The Court, therefore, does not need to reach the merits of the motion.

RECOMMENDATIONS

For the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 3) be FOUND MOOT and the Court adopt the preceding findings of fact and conclusions of law.

NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and SDIL-LR 73.1(b), any party may serve and file written OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation/Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law within fourteen (14) days after service. Failure to file such OBJECTIONS shall result in a waiver of the right to appeal all issues, both factual and legal, which are addressed in the Report and Recommendation. Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd. and Joseph Sclafani, 797 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986).

You are not to file an appeal as to the Report and Recommendation. An appeal is inappropriate until after the District Judge issues an Order either affirming or reversing the Report and Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge.