Martin v. Roberts

Full title: JAMES M. MARTIN, Plaintiff, v. KEVIN ROBERTS, ET. AL., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Albany Division

Date published: Sep 5, 2008

1:06-CV-63 (WLS) (M.D. Ga. Sep. 5, 2008)

Opinion

1:06-CV-63 (WLS).

September 5, 2008

ORDER

W. SANDS, Chief Judge

Before the Court are the Reports and Recommendations from United States Magistrate Judge Richard L. Hodge (Doc. No. 115, 118, 125), filed May 19, 2008, May 20, 2008, and June 4, 2008, respectively. It is recommended that Plaintiff's motion for class certification (Doc. No. 77); motion for "leave to file re-discovery (Doc. No. 79) and motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 102) be denied. Plaintiff has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation recommending denial of his motion for class certification and for "re-discovery." (Doc. Nos. 121, 126). Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation recommending denial of his motion for injunctive relief.

Plaintiff's objection to the Recommendation that his motion for class certification is without merit. (Doc. No. 121). To the extent that Plaintiff objects to the Recommendation, the point was clearly and correctly addressed by the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff's objection to the Recommendation that his motion for "re-discovery" be denied is a compilation of re-arguments of why the Magistrate Judge's ruling on numerous motions should be rejected and apparently new arguments for other relief. (Doc. No. 126). To the extent that Plaintiff's objection addresses the substantive Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, his objection does not raise any legal or factual basis to state that the Magistrate Judge's recommendation is wrong. To the extent that Plaintiff is re-arguing previously decided orders and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge and this Court, or in fact, making new arguments or requests for relief, the arguments are denied as untimely.

Upon full consideration of the record, the Court finds that said Recommendations (Doc. Nos. 115, 118, 125) should be, and hereby are, ACCEPTED, ADOPTED and made the orders of this Court for reason of the findings and reasons set out therein. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motions for injunctive or other relief (Doc. No. 77, 79, 102) are DENIED.

SO ORDERED.