Opinion
Civil Action No. 05-cv-01258-EWN-BNB.
March 28, 2006
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the court on the "Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge" filed September 1, 2005. The recommendation is that Applicant's motion for a preliminary injunction (#3) be denied. Applicant has objected to the recommendation.
The standard of review which this court employs in considering a magistrate judge's submissions depends upon whether the motion before the court and magistrate judge is viewed as dispositive or non-dispositive. For dispositive motions, such as a motion for preliminary injunction, a district court assessing a magistrate judge's findings of fact and recommendations for disposition must make a "de novo determination of those portions of the [recommendation] . . . to which objection is made." See 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1) (West 1993); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). "When conducting de novo review, the district court makes its own determinations of disputed issues and does not decide whether the magistrate's proposed findings are clearly erroneous." Branch v. Martin, 886 F.2d 1043, 1046 (8th Cir. 1989).
I have conducted the requisite de novo review of the issues, the record, and the recommendation. Based on this review, I have concluded that the Applicant has not shown that (1) there is a reasonable probability of his success on the merits, (2) he will suffer any irreparable injury from discontinuance of the intensive confinement program (since the Bureau of Prisons rejected him for participation anyway), or (3) the public interest favors granting an injunction. Since these are critical elements of a motion for a preliminary injunction, Applicant's claim must fail. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED as follows:
1. The recommendation is ACCEPTED.
2. The motion for a preliminary injunction (#3) is DENIED.
3. All other pending motions are DENIED as moot.