From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cox v. Palmer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Feb 25, 2013
3:12-CV-00017-RCJ-VPC (D. Nev. Feb. 25, 2013)

Opinion

3:12-CV-00017-RCJ-VPC

02-25-2013

MICHAEL STEVE COX, Plaintiff, v. JACK PALMER, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

The Court has considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate (ECF #82) entered on January 25, 2013, in which the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court enter an order denying Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (ECF #39). The Court has considered the pleadings and memoranda of the parties and other relevant matters of record and has made a review and determination in accordance with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and applicable case law, and good cause appearing, the court hereby

ADOPTS AND ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (ECF #82).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (ECF #39) is DENIED.

____________________

ROBERT C. JONES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Cox v. Palmer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Feb 25, 2013
3:12-CV-00017-RCJ-VPC (D. Nev. Feb. 25, 2013)
Case details for

Cox v. Palmer

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL STEVE COX, Plaintiff, v. JACK PALMER, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Date published: Feb 25, 2013

Citations

3:12-CV-00017-RCJ-VPC (D. Nev. Feb. 25, 2013)