United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
FRENSLEY MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
WILLIAM L. CAMPBELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (Doc. No. 94). Through his motion, Plaintiff seeks
an order directing Defendants to restore his
“previously enjoyed personal property rights.”
(Doc. No. 27.) Specifically, Plaintiff seeks an order
allowing him to replace a number of personal property items
he alleges were lost or taken from him in violation of the
Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. (Id.) The
Magistrate Judge recommends denying Plaintiff's motion.
filed objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No.
99). After a de novo review, and for the following
reasons, Plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED, the Report
and Recommendation (Doc. No. 94) is ADOPTED, and
Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No.
27) is DENIED.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.03(b)(3), a
district court reviews de novo any portion of a
report and recommendation to which a specific objection is
made. United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 603
(6th Cir. 2001). General or conclusory objections are
insufficient. See Zimmerman v. Cason, 354 Fed.Appx.
228, 230 (6th Cir. 2009). Thus, “only those specific
objections to the magistrate's report made to the
district court will be preserved for appellate review.”
Id. (quoting Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of
Teachers, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987)). In
conducting the review, the court may “accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the
relative position of the parties until a trial on the merits
can be held. Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S.
390, 395 (1981). Preliminary injunctions that alter the
status quo are specifically disfavored. Schrier v. Univ.
of Colo., 427 F.3d 1253, 1259 (10th Cir. 2005). The
moving party has the burden of proving that circumstances
clearly demand a preliminary injunction. Overstreet v.
Lexington-Fayette Urban Cty. Gov't, 305 F.3d 566,
573 (6th Cir. 2002).
Court balances four factors in deciding whether to issue the
extraordinary equitable remedy of a preliminary injunction:
“(1) whether the movant has a strong likelihood of
success on the merits; (2) whether the movant would suffer
irreparable injury without the injunction; (3) whether the
issuance of the injunction would cause substantial harm to
others; and (4) whether the public interest would be served
by issuance of the injunction.” City of Pontiac
Ret. Emps. Ass'n v. Schimmel, 751 F.3d 427, 430 (6th
Cir. 2014) (en banc) (internal quotes omitted).
“A finding that there is simply no likelihood of
success on the merits is usually fatal.” Gonzalez
v. Nat'l Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 225 F.3d 620, 625
(6th Cir. 2000).
Magistrate Judge determined that the factors weighed against
granting a preliminary injunction and recommends denying
Plaintiff's motion. First, he noted that Plaintiff has no
likelihood of success on the merits because the Court has
already dismissed Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claims
related to the loss of his property. In addition, Plaintiff
was unlikely to suffer irreparable harm as a result of the
alleged constitutional violation because adequate state
remedies were available to redress the deprivation of
property. Finally, the Magistrate Judge noted that the public
interest in effective prison administration weighs against
injunctive relief. See Sandin v Conner, 515 U.S.
presented five specific objections to the Magistrate
Judge's recommendation. (Doc. No. 99.) First, Plaintiff
objects that the recommendation was not made promptly. The
amount of time required for the Magistrate Judge to make a
recommendation does not affect the Court's evaluation of
the motion and, in any event, Plaintiff was not prejudiced by
the length of time taken to consider the motion and issue a
recommendation. Accordingly, this objection is overruled.
Plaintiff objects that the Magistrate Judge did not require
the Defendants to respond to the motion and did not hold a
hearing. Defendant's must have the opportunity, but are
not required, to respond to the motion. Regarding the
necessity of a hearing, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65
does not require a hearing on a motion for preliminary
injunction when no material facts are in dispute. See
Farnsworth v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 569 Fed App'x.
421, 427 (6th Cir. 2014). While the facts in this case are
disputed, the facts material to the preliminary injunction
are not. Therefore, no hearing was required. Plaintiff's
objection on these grounds is overruled.
Plaintiff argues he has exhausted all administrative remedies
and therefore the determination that there are adequate
“state post-deprivation remedies” is incorrect.
As stated in the Court's Memorandum Opinion, to state a
claim against a state actor for violation of due process
under the Fourteenth Amendment, Plaintiff must show that he
has no adequate state remedies. (Doc. No. 17 at 24.)
“Adequate state remedies, ” refers not to
administrative remedies, but to remedies under state tort
law, in this case for recovery of lost property. See
Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 543-44 (1981),
overruled on other grounds by Daniel v. William, 474
U.S. 327 (1986). Accordingly, this objection is overruled.
Plaintiff argues the Magistrate Judge applied an incorrect
legal standard when he stated that the purpose of a
preliminary injunction is the “maintenance of the
status quo pending trial.” The Magistrate Judge's
statement of the law was correct. The United States Supreme
Court has stated “the purpose of a preliminary
injunction is merely to preserve the relative position of the
parties until a trial on the merits has been held.”
Univ. of Texas, 451 U.S. at 396. “Status
quo” means “the existing state of affairs.”
Webster's New International Dictionary (3d ed. 2002).
Although the ...