Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-00010/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-00010-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

RICKY WADE DAVIS, #173073, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06-CV-10-MEF

 ) [WO] 

)

SGT. BRYANT, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Ricky Wade Davis [“Davis”], a state inmate,

complains that the defendants utilized excessive force against him on December 30, 2005

and denied him his First Amendment right to exercise his religion. The plaintiff requests

issuance of a preliminary injunction, see Plaintiff’s Complaint at 4, which the court

construes as a motion for preliminary injunction under Rule 65, Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Upon consideration of the motion for preliminary injunction, the court

concludes that this motion is due to be denied.

DISCUSSION

The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction “is within the sound discretion

of the district court . . .” Palmer v. Braun, 287 F.3d 1325, 1329 (11 Cir. 2002). The four th

prerequisites which Davis must demonstrate are: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on

the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury without the injunction; (3) that the

Case 2:06-cv-00010-MEF-TFM Document 6 Filed 01/06/06 Page 1 of 4
2

harm to Davis outweighs the harm to the non-moving parties; and (4) that an injunction

would be in the interest of the public. Palmer, 287 F.3d at 1329; Cate v. Oldham, 707 F.2d

1176 (11 Cir. 1983); Shatel Corp. v. Mao Ta Lumber and Yacht Corp., 697 F.2d 1352 th

(11 Cir. 1983). “[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to th

be granted unless the movant clearly established the burden of persuasion” as to each of the

four prerequisites. See McDonald's Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11 Cir.

th

1998) (internal citations and quotations omitted); see also Texas v. Seatrain Int'l, S.A., 518

F.2d 175, 179 (5 Cir. 1975) (grant of preliminary injunction “is the exception rather than

th

the rule,” and movant must clearly carry the burden of persuasion). The moving party’s

failure to demonstrate a “substantial likelihood of success on the merits” may defeat the

party’s claim, regardless of the party’s ability to establish any of the other elements.

Church v. City of Huntsville, 30 F.3d 1332, 1342 (11 Cir. 1994); see also Siegel v. Lepore,

th

234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11 Cir. 2000) (noting that “the absence of a substantial likelihood th

of irreparable injury would, standing alone, make preliminary injunctive relief improper”).

Davis fails to present any evidence of a substantial likelihood of success on the

merits or that he will suffer irreparable harm absent issuance of a preliminary injunction.

He also fails to address balancing the equities of the parties or whether the issuance of an

injunction would be in the public interest. The pleadings before the court therefore fail to

establish that Davis meets each of the prerequisites necessary for issuance of a preliminary

Case 2:06-cv-00010-MEF-TFM Document 6 Filed 01/06/06 Page 2 of 4
3

injunction. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that the

motion for preliminary injunction filed by Davis on January 5, 2006 be denied. 

It is further

ORDERED that on or before January 18, 2006 the parties may file objections to the

Recommendation. Any objection must specifically identify the findings in the

Recommendation objected to. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be

considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not

a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings in the Recommendation

shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in

the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the report

accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest

injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds

Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 th

F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all decisions of the th

former Fifth Circuit issued prior to September 30, 1981.

Done this 6th day of January, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00010-MEF-TFM Document 6 Filed 01/06/06 Page 3 of 4
4

/s/ Delores R. Boyd

DELORES R. BOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00010-MEF-TFM Document 6 Filed 01/06/06 Page 4 of 4