Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-00511/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-00511-1/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

COURTNEY BOYD, #208921, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06-CV-511-WKW

) [WO]

)

DR. DARBOUZE, et al., )

)

 Defendants )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which Courtney Boyd [“Boyd”], a state inmate,

asserts that the defendants have denied him adequate medical treatment. On August 14,

2006, Boyd filed a motion 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). th

The four prerequisites which Boyd must demonstrate to warrant issuance of a preliminary

injunction are: (1) a substantial likelihood ofsuccess on the merits; (2) a substantial threat

of irreparable injury without the injunction; (3) that the harm to Boyd outweighs the harm

to the non-moving parties; and (4) that an injunction would be in the interest of the public.

Case 2:06-cv-00511-WKW-CSC Document 25 Filed 08/17/06 Page 1 of 3
2

Palmer, 287 F.3d at 1329; Cate v. Oldham, 707 F.2d 1176 (11 Cir. 1983); Shatel Corp. th

v. Mao Ta Lumber and Yacht Corp., 697 F.2d 1352 (11 Cir. 1983). “[A] preliminary

th

injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to 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. 1998) (internal citations th

and quotations omitted); see also Texas v. Seatrain Int'l, S.A., 518 F.2d 175, 179 (5 Cir. th

1975) (grant of preliminary injunction “is the exception rather than 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, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11 th th

Cir. 2000) (noting that “the absence of a substantial likelihood of irreparable injury would,

standing alone, make preliminary injunctive relief improper”).

Boyd fails to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or that upon

balancing the equities of the parties issuance of an injunction would be in the public

interest. The pleadings before the court therefore fail to establish that Boyd meets each of

the prerequisites necessary for issuance of a preliminary injunction. 

CONCLUSION

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

1. The motion for preliminary injunction filed by the plaintiff on August 14, 2006

Case 2:06-cv-00511-WKW-CSC Document 25 Filed 08/17/06 Page 2 of 3
3

be DENIED. 

2. This case be referred back the undersigned for additional proceedings.

It is further

ORDERED that on or before August 28, 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 17th day of August, 2006.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00511-WKW-CSC Document 25 Filed 08/17/06 Page 3 of 3