Hastings v. Wilbur

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION

STEVEN HASTINGS ADC #171672 PLAINTIFF

v. No. 3:20-cv-160-DPM-JJV ALEC J. WILBUR, Corrections Sergeant, North Central Unit, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER Hastings appeals the Magistrate Judge’s denial of his most recent motion for preliminary injunctive relief. Doc. 354 & 358. The Court vacates the Order because, unless the parties consent to a Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction, motions for injunctive relief must be handled by recommendation to a District Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)-(B). On de novo consideration, though, the Court reaches the same result. Hastings’s “motion is based on new assertions of mistreatment that are entirely different from the claim|s] raised and the relief requested” in these consolidated lawsuits, which are about the care Hastings received for his diabetes and bipolar disorder. Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). Preliminary injunctive relief is therefore inappropriate. If Hastings wants to raise failure-to-protect and retaliation claims, then he must do so in a separate lawsuit after exhausting his administrative remedies. Motion, Doc. 358, denied.

So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 1 Sortmnbu 202

_2-