Salem v. Tipton County Board of Education

W.D. Tennessee

Salem v. Tipton County Board of Education

District Court, W.D. Tennessee·Decided August 20, 2025·No. 2:25-cv-02442·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION ______________________________________________________________________________

MOHAMMAD AMJAD SALEM, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. 2:25-cv-02442-JPM-atc ) v. ) ) TIPTON COUNTY BOARD OF ) EDUCATION, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Annie T. Christoff, entered on August 5, 2025. (ECF No. 48.) Also before the Court is Plaintiff Mohammad Amjad Salem’s (“Plaintiff’s”) request for a preliminary injunction, as stated in his Amended Complaint, filed June 10, 2025, (ECF No. 15), and in his Motion for Emergency Preliminary Injunction and Expedited Hearing, filed June 12, 2025, (ECF No. 19). Defendant Tipton County Board of Education (“Defendant” or the “Board”) responded in opposition on July 10, 2025. (ECF No. 35.) The Magistrate Judge heard argument on the Motion on July 11, 2025. (ECF No. 48 at PageID 284–85.)1 The Magistrate Judge recommends the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for failure to clearly demonstrate an irreparable harm. (ECF No. 48 at PageID 285, 288.) A preliminary injunction requires a “clear showing” that Plaintiff “is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of

1 Because the Magistrate Judge already held the requested hearing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Hearing, (ECF No. 19 at PageID 64, 66), is DENIED AS MOOT. preliminary relief.” EOG Res., Inc. v. Lucky Land Mgmt., LLC, 134 F.4th 868, 874 (6th Cir. 2025) (internal quotations omitted); see also D.T. v. Sumner Cnty. Schs., 942 F.3d 324, 327 (6th Cir. 2019) (calling the irreparable harm requirement “indispensable”). No objections were filed within fourteen days of the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Finding no clear error in the R&R, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Emergency Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. SO ORDERED, this 20th day of August, 2025. /s/ Jon P. McCalla JON P. McCALLA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION ______________________________________________________________________________

MOHAMMAD AMJAD SALEM, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. 2:25-cv-02442-JPM-atc ) v. ) ) TIPTON COUNTY BOARD OF ) EDUCATION, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Annie T. Christoff, entered on August 5, 2025. (ECF No. 48.) Also before the Court is Plaintiff Mohammad Amjad Salem’s (“Plaintiff’s”) request for a preliminary injunction, as stated in his Amended Complaint, filed June 10, 2025, (ECF No. 15), and in his Motion for Emergency Preliminary Injunction and Expedited Hearing, filed June 12, 2025, (ECF No. 19). Defendant Tipton County Board of Education (“Defendant” or the “Board”) responded in opposition on July 10, 2025. (ECF No. 35.) The Magistrate Judge heard argument on the Motion on July 11, 2025. (ECF No. 48 at PageID 284–85.)1 The Magistrate Judge recommends the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for failure to clearly demonstrate an irreparable harm. (ECF No. 48 at PageID 285, 288.) A preliminary injunction requires a “clear showing” that Plaintiff “is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of

1 Because the Magistrate Judge already held the requested hearing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Hearing, (ECF No. 19 at PageID 64, 66), is DENIED AS MOOT. preliminary relief.” EOG Res., Inc. v. Lucky Land Mgmt., LLC, 134 F.4th 868, 874 (6th Cir. 2025) (internal quotations omitted); see also D.T. v. Sumner Cnty. Schs., 942 F.3d 324, 327 (6th Cir. 2019) (calling the irreparable harm requirement “indispensable”). No objections were filed within fourteen days of the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Finding no clear error in the R&R, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Emergency Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. SO ORDERED, this 20th day of August, 2025. /s/ Jon P. McCalla JON P. McCALLA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Salem v. Tipton County Board of Education, (W.D. Tenn. 2025).

Pincite

Salem v. Tipton County Board of Education (Salem v. Tipton County Board of Education) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related