IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
July 14, 2010
ED COLLINS, PLAINTIFF
DANIEL BOYD, KEVIN FREIL, JAMES HART, SALLIE RODGERS, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
AND NOW, this 14th day of July, 2010, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 100) of the magistrate judge, recommending that the motion (Doc. 86) for preliminary injunctive relief, filed by plaintiff Ed Collins ("Collins"), be denied, and, following an independent review of the record, it appearing that Collins must establish that (1) he has a reasonable probability of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury will result without injunctive relief, (3) granting the injunction will not result in even greater harm to the defendants, and (4) the injunction is in the public interest, see Rogers v. Corbett, 468 F.3d 188, 192 (3d Cir. 2006); P.C. Yonkers, Inc. v. Celebrations the Party & Seasonal Superstore, LLC, 428 F.3d 504, 508 (3d Cir. 2005) (explaining that the burden of demonstrating each element falls upon the movant), that he has not demonstrated a reasonable probability of success on the merits of the litigation, (see Doc. 100 at 3-4 (explaining that ultimate disposition of the matter will depend upon the resolution of multiple credibility disputes)), and that he has not shown the immediate necessity of injunctive relief, (see id. at 4 (explaining that Collins' employment discrimination claim may ultimately be remedied by monetary damages)), and it further appearing that neither party has objected to the magistrate judge's recommendation, and that there is no clear error on the face of the record,*fn1 see Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (explaining that "failing to timely object to [a report and recommendation] in a civil proceeding may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level"), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The report (Doc. 100) of the magistrate judge is ADOPTED.
2. The motion (Doc. 86) for preliminary injunctive relief is DENIED.
3. The above-captioned case is REMANDED to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge