Opinion
5:21-cv-140 (MTT) (CHW)
12-17-2021
RICO LAMAR BALLARD, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER MATTHEWS, et al., Defendants.
Proceedings Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Before the U.S. Magistrate Judge
ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION
Charles H. Weigle United States Magistrate Judge.
The record shows that counsel for the Defendants attempted to depose Plaintiff Rico Lamar Ballard by WebEx, but that the deposition was not successful. Accordingly, the Defendants move for an extension of time to schedule and conduct an in-person deposition, and thereafter to move for summary judgment. For good cause shown, the Defendants' motion for an extension (Doc. 52) is GRANTED. The discovery period shall now run through January 28, 2022. Dispositive motions are due by February 28, 2022.
Additionally, Plaintiff has moved for preliminary injunctive relief. (Doc. 35). While Plaintiff's motion complains of interference, by prison authorities, with Plaintiff's legal mail, Plaintiff has failed to offer any analysis of the four factors relevant to the preliminary injunction analysis, the most important of which is likelihood of success on the merits of Plaintiff's deliberate indifference and excessive force claims in this action. For that reason, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 35) be DENIED.
The four factors relevant to the preliminary injunctive relief analysis are: “(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that irreparable injury will be suffered unless the injunction issues; (3) the threatened injury to the movant outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) if issued, the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest.” Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts, B.V., v. Consorcio Barr, S.A., 320 F.3d 1205, 1210 (11th Cir. 2003). The “movant must clearly carry the burden of persuasion” as to each of these factors. Id.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may serve and file written objections to this Recommendation, or seek an extension of time to file objections, WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. The District Judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made. All other portions of the Recommendation may be reviewed for clear error.
The parties are further notified that, pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice.”
SO ORDERED.