Opinion
Civil No. 05-cv-445-JD.
October 19, 2006
ORDER
William Edmondson filed a motion on August 22, 2006, seeking injunctive relief and suboenas to address his allegations of tainted testimony at a prior hearing and of ongoing retaliation against him. Although the title of the motion included the phrase "Permanent Injunction," the magistrate judge treated the motion as seeking a preliminary injunction. After a hearing, the magistrate judge recommended that the preliminary injunction be denied, which was approved by the court's order issued on October 11, 2006. The court issues the following clarification.
The court treated Edmondson's motion as one seeking preliminary injunctive relief and that was denied. Edmondson includes injunctive relief among the remedies he seeks in his complaint. Edmondson's claim for permanent injunctive relief, as alleged in his complaint, has not yet been addressed or resolved.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff's motion filed on August 22, 2006, (document no. 48) is deemed to be a motion for a preliminary injunction and subpoenas and was denied as to the preliminary injunction (documents no. 61 and 65). That part of the motion which requested a permanent injunction is terminated.
SO ORDERED.