Hines v. Smith, 16cv3797(DSD/SER). (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Minnesota
Number: infdco20180423855
Visitors: 16
Filed: Apr. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 20, 2018
Summary: ORDER DAVID S. DOTY , District Judge . This matter is before the court upon the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau dated March 27, 2018 (R&R). The magistrate judge recommended that the court deny pro se plaintiff Fredrick Dewayne Hines's motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. No objections to the R&R have been filed in the time period permitted. 1 Under these circumstances, the court finds it appropriate to adopt the R&R. Accordingly,
Summary: ORDER DAVID S. DOTY , District Judge . This matter is before the court upon the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau dated March 27, 2018 (R&R). The magistrate judge recommended that the court deny pro se plaintiff Fredrick Dewayne Hines's motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. No objections to the R&R have been filed in the time period permitted. 1 Under these circumstances, the court finds it appropriate to adopt the R&R. Accordingly, ..
More
ORDER
DAVID S. DOTY, District Judge.
This matter is before the court upon the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau dated March 27, 2018 (R&R). The magistrate judge recommended that the court deny pro se plaintiff Fredrick Dewayne Hines's motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. No objections to the R&R have been filed in the time period permitted.1 Under these circumstances, the court finds it appropriate to adopt the R&R.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The R&R [ECF No. 130] is adopted in its entirety; and
2. Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction [ECF No. 121] is denied with prejudice.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
FootNotes
1. After the R&R was filed, Hines filed a document titled "Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Memorandum of Law to Deny Temporary Restraining Order Preliminary Relief." See ECF No. 131. To the extent Hines intends this to be an objection to the R&R, the court overrules it. After a de novo review, the court finds that the R&R is well reasoned and correct. Further, Hines merely reasserts the arguments already made in his original motion; he does not make any specific objection to the R&R.
Source: Leagle
