Opinion
21-cv-1776 (SRN/TNL)
12-13-2021
Samuel I. Cox, Plaintiff, v. Commissioner of Department of Human Services, Jane and or John Doe Department of Human Services Mailroom Supervisor, and Jane/John Doe Mailroom employee, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TONY N. LEUNG UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT Cox's request for a preliminary injunction, Complaint at 5 [ECF No. 1], be DENIED without prejudice. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(1), a district court “may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the adverse party.” There is no indication that Defendants have notice of Cox's preliminary-injunction request; indeed, Defendants have yet to be served in this action.
Furthermore, while the Court recommends denying Cox's preliminary-injunction request for procedural reasons-failure to comply with the applicable rules-the Court would have recommended denying the request on substantive grounds even if Cox had complied with the proper procedures. When considering a preliminary-injunction request, district courts in the Eighth Circuit consider the “Dataphase factors”: “‘(1) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (2) the state of balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other parties litigant; (3) the probability that movant will succeed on the merits; and (4) the public interest.'” Novus Franchising, Inc. v. Dawson, 725 F.3d 885, 893 (8th Cir. 2013) (quoting Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. CL Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981), and applying factors to preliminary-injunction request). Critically, the party seeking a preliminary injunction has the burden of showing such relief's propriety. See, e.g., Lankford v. Sherman, 451 F.3d 496, 503 (8th Cir. 2006) (citing Watkins, Inc. v. Lewis, 346 F.3d 841, 844 (8th Cir. 2003)). Cox's brief preliminary-injunction request contains no direct discussion of the Dataphase factors. See Complaint at 5 [ECF No. 1].
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written objections to a magistrate judge's proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being served a copy” of the Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to those objections within 14 days after being served a copy of the objections. See Local Rule 72.2(b)(2). All objections and responses must comply with the word or line limits set forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).