IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SILAS MARTIN, #145609
WARDEN ARNOLD HOLT, et al.,
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunctive relief. (Doc.
No. 2.) He seeks a preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants from violating his
constitutional rights. Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction,
the court concludes that the motion is due to be denied.
A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy which should not be
granted unless the movant clearly carries the burden of persuasion as to all prerequisites.
United States v. Jefferson County, 720 F.2d 1511 (11th Cir. 1983). The four prerequisites
which a movant must satisfy are as follows: (1) a substantial likelihood that the movant will
ultimately prevail on the merits, (2) a showing that the movant will suffer irreparable injury
unless the injunction issues, (3) proof that the threatened injury to the movant outweighs the
damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party, and (4) a showing that the
Case 2:06-cv-00490-WKW-SRW Document 5 Filed 06/07/2006 Page 1 of 3
Martin v. Holt et al (INMATE2)
injunction, if issued, will not be adverse to or harm the public interests. Cate v. Oldham, 707
F.2d 1176 (11th Cir. 1983); Shatel Corp. v. Mao Ta Lumber and Yacht Corp., 697 F.2d 1352
(11th Cir. 1983). The court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s motion and concludes that
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he meets each of the prerequisites for the issuance of
a preliminary injunction.
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 2) be DENIED; and
2. This case be referred back to the undersigned