VEGA
v.
RUNYON
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, denying the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction.
Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction to be transferred to a different facility due to alleged threats from the defendant. The Magistrate Judge re…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Irreparable Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 21, and has also reviewed de novo Plaintiff’s objections, ECF No. 26. Plaintiff raises several arguments, but none help his claim. First, nothing in Plaintiff’s objections rebuts the Magistrate Judge’s well-reasoned finding that Plaintiff falls short of demonstrating a substantial threat of an irreparable injury. Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations regarding the potential threat he faces from Defendant at the new correctional facility are insufficient to establish a substantial threat of an irreparable injury. Second, nothing in Plaintiff’s objections rebuts the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s request for an order from this Court for prison officials to transfer him to a different facility is generally beyond this Court’s authority. See McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 39 (2002) (“It is well settled that the decision where to house inmates is at the core of prison administrators’ expertise.”); Barfield v. Brierton, 883 F. 2d 923, 936 (11th Cir. 1989) (“[I]nmates
usually possess no constitutional right to be housed at one prison over another.”). Plaintiff fails to articulate—and this Court cannot discern from his papers or its own research—a legally sufficient reason to depart from this general rule here.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1. The report and recommendation, ECF No. 21, is accepted and adopted, over Plaintiff’s objections, as this Court’s opinion.
2. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, ECF No. 19, is DENIED. 3. This case is remanded to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. SO ORDERED on October 23, 2023.
s/Mark E. Walker ____ Chief United States District Judge
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Barfield v. Brierton, 883 F.2d 923 (11th Cir. 1989)
- McKUNE v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (U.S. 2002)