Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00975/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00975-5/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

 ______________________________

ROBERT JAMES SMITH, #153 533 *

Plaintiff, *

v. * 2:05-CV-975-WKW

 (WO)

COMM. DONAL CAMPBELL, et al., *

Defendants. *

 __________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pending before the court is Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction under Rule

65, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He complains that, under the guise of a reclassification procedure, Defendants punitively segregated him in retaliation for him

exercising his right of access to the courts 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 Plaintiff 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

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

Case 2:05-cv-00975-WKW-TFM Document 31 Filed 02/10/06 Page 1 of 4
2

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 (11 th th

Cir. 1983). “[A] preliminary 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) th

(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 the th

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, th

1176 (11 Cir. 2000) (noting that “the absence of a substantial likelihood of irreparable th

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

The court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction and

finds that he has failed to meet each of the prerequisites for the issuance of a preliminary

injunction. The undersigned, therefore, concludes that Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary

injunction should be denied. 

Case 2:05-cv-00975-WKW-TFM Document 31 Filed 02/10/06 Page 2 of 4
3

 CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff's

motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 28) be DENIED. 

It is further the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that this case be referred

back to the undersigned for additional proceedings.

It is further

ORDERED that on or before February 21, 2006 the parties shall file objections to

the Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge's 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 and recommendations in the

Magistrate Judge's report 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 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down prior to the close of

Case 2:05-cv-00975-WKW-TFM Document 31 Filed 02/10/06 Page 3 of 4
4

business on September 30, 1981.

 Done, this 10th day of February 2006.

/s/ Delores R. Boyd

DELORES R. BOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:05-cv-00975-WKW-TFM Document 31 Filed 02/10/06 Page 4 of 4