From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McNeill v. Bond

United States District Court, Middle District of North Carolina
Jan 5, 2023
1:18CV786 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 5, 2023)

Opinion

1:18CV786

01-05-2023

JAMES C. MCNEILL, Plaintiff, v. MONICA BOND, Defendant.


ORDER

Loretta C. Biggs United States District Judge.

The Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge was filed with the Court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and on December 8, 2022, was served on the parties in this action. (ECF Nos. 179, 180.) No objections were filed within the time prescribed by § 636.

The Court hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motions seeking preliminary injunctions and a temporary restraining order, (ECF Nos. 169, 173), are DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent Plaintiff requests a continuance to file supplemental pleadings, (ECF No. 173), that request is DENIED.


Summaries of

McNeill v. Bond

United States District Court, Middle District of North Carolina
Jan 5, 2023
1:18CV786 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 5, 2023)
Case details for

McNeill v. Bond

Case Details

Full title:JAMES C. MCNEILL, Plaintiff, v. MONICA BOND, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Middle District of North Carolina

Date published: Jan 5, 2023

Citations

1:18CV786 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 5, 2023)

Citing Cases

Microban Int'l v. Kennedy

To the extent that Plaintiff's TRO motion is still before the Court, the standard for granting either a…

Lee v. Kersey

“It frequently is observed that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that…