Ravan v. Talton

Full title: JOHN STEPHEN RAVAN, Plaintiff, v. SHERIFF CULLEN TALTON, et al.…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

Date published: Sep 15, 2020

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-cv-00161-TES-TQL (M.D. Ga. Sep. 15, 2020)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-cv-00161-TES-TQL

09-15-2020

JOHN STEPHEN RAVAN, Plaintiff, v. SHERIFF CULLEN TALTON, et al., Defendants.

TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

ORDER ADOPTING THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

After a de novo review of the record in this case, the Court ADOPTS the United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") [Doc. 151] and MAKES IT THE ORDER OF THE COURT. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Court reviewed and considered Plaintiff's Objection [Doc. 157] to the Report and Recommendation and finds that it lacks merit. The Magistrate Judge considered three of Plaintiff's motions, [Doc. 126]; [Doc. 128]; [Doc. 147], that each seek various forms of injunctive relief. [Doc. 151, pp. 2-3]. The Magistrate Judge recommends that each of these claims be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. [Id. at p. 3]. Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's R&R by re-emphasizing his need for the injunctive relief he seeks. [Doc. 157, pp. 1-2].

A court lacks the power to enjoin a party not before it. See Renfroe & Co. v. Moran, 338 F. App'x 836, 838 (11th Cir. 2009) ("[I]t is axiomatic that courts may only enjoin parties before the court."). Plaintiff's three motions for injunctive relief, to the best the Court can tell, name 19 people or entities, none of whom are among the 22 parties named as defendants in the present action. Therefore, consistent with the findings of the Magistrate Judge, the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant Plaintiff's requests for injunctive relief against the 19 nonparties. See Infant Formula Antitrust Litigation, MDL 878 v. Abbott Lab'ys, 72 F.3d 842, 842-43 (11th Cir. 1995) (holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin a nonparty).

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. 151] and orders that Plaintiff's Motions for injunctive relief, [Doc. 126], [Doc. 128], and [Doc. 147], be DENIED.

SO ORDERED, this 15th day of September, 2020.

S/ Tilman E. Self, III

TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT