Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-CV-190(MTT)
11-30-2012
JUAN CARLOS ORTIZ, Plaintiff, v. EDWARD HALE BURNSIDE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle's Recommendation (Doc. 10) on the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 2). The Magistrate Judge recommends denying the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction because, at this time, the facts have not been sufficiently developed to establish the elements necessary to grant the preliminary injunction. (Doc. 10 at 3). The Plaintiff has objected to the Recommendation. (Doc. 15).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has thoroughly considered the Plaintiff's Objection and has made a de novo determination of the portions of the Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. The Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge in the Recommendation. (Doc. 10).
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.
______________
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT