From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Starling

United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina
Sep 26, 2006
1:02CV00014 (M.D.N.C. Sep. 26, 2006)

Opinion

1:02CV00014.

September 26, 2006


ORDER


On August 7, 2006, the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation was filed and notice was served on the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Plaintiff filed objections to the Recommendation within the time limit prescribed by Section 636 and defendants filed a response and plaintiff filed a reply.

The Court has reviewed the parties' submissions de novo and finds they do not change the substance of the United States Magistrate Judge's rulings which are affirmed and adopted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's request for an injunction (docket no. 111) is denied for being frivolous.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' motion for sanctions (docket no. 112) is denied, but without prejudice to defendants requesting monetary relief with respect to plaintiff's filing the request for an injunction should plaintiff file another frivolous pleading.


Summaries of

Williams v. Starling

United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina
Sep 26, 2006
1:02CV00014 (M.D.N.C. Sep. 26, 2006)
Case details for

Williams v. Starling

Case Details

Full title:STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. RON STARLING, RON SHARPE, and FRED…

Court:United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina

Date published: Sep 26, 2006

Citations

1:02CV00014 (M.D.N.C. Sep. 26, 2006)

Citing Cases

Williams v. Starling

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by…