Oryang v. Hamm (INMATE 2)

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION BENJAMIN BEDOGWAR ) ORYANG, # 168 079, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:21-CV-23-WKW ) [WO] ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF ) CORRECTIONS, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER On November 18, 2021, the Magistrate Judge entered a Supplemental Recommendation on Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. (Doc. # 108.) On December 7, 2021, the court adopted the Supplemental Recommendation after no objections were filed. (Doc. # 110.) Later the same day, Plaintiff’s objections to the Supplemental Recommendation were received and docketed. (Doc. # 113.) The objections are timely.1 Upon de novo review of those portions of the Supplemental Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects, see 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is ORDERED that the objections

1 “Under the prison mailbox rule, a pro se prisoner’s court filing is deemed filed on the date it is delivered to prison authorities for mailing. Absent evidence to the contrary, [courts] assume that the prisoner’s filing was delivered to prison authorities the day he signed it.” Daker v. Comm’r, Ga. Dep’t of Corrs., 820 F.3d 1278, 1286 (11th Cir. 2016) (cleaned up). (Doc. # 113) are OVERRULED and that the December 7, 2021 Order (Doc. # 110) is REAFFIRMED.

DONE this 16th day of December, 2021. /s/ W. Keith Watkins UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE