Thompson v. Cookie Crews

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY NORTHERN DIVISION ASHLAND

CIVIL ACTION NO. 0:24-CV-00046-DLB-EBA

KYLE THOMPSON, PLAINTIFF,

V. RECOMMENDATION

COOKIE CREWS, et al., DEFENDANTS.

*** *** *** *** This matter is before the court on Kyle Thompson’s third motion for a preliminary injunction. [R. 45]. In essence, Thompson seeks a preliminary injunction in which the Court would order the Defendants to preserve various video and audio recordings allegedly made at Little Sandy Correctional Complex, which he claims will serve as “crucial” pieces of evidence in this case and a future lawsuit he intends to file under 28 U.S.C. § 1983. [R. 45]. However, because Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(e) requires the preservation of evidence and allows the Court to sanction parties who fail to preserve electronically stored information without a motion for or order granting a preliminary injunction, and being sufficiently advised, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Thompson’s third motion for a preliminary injunction, [R. 45], be DENIED as MOOT. *** *** *** *** The parties are directed to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) for a review of appeal rights governing this Recommended Disposition. Particularized objections to this Recommended Disposition must be filed within fourteen days from the date of service thereof or further appeal is waived. United States v. Campbell, 261 F.3d 628, 632 (6th Cir. 2001); Thomas v. Ann, 728 F.2d 813, 815 (6th Cir. 1984). General objections or objections that require a judge’s interpretation are insufficient to preserve the right to appeal. Cowherd v. Million, 380 F.3d 909, 912 (6th Cir. 2004); Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995). A party may file a response to another party’s objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy thereof. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(1). Signed July 31, 2025. □ SOR _ Signed By: \ Ue Edward B. Atkins é B i “<= United States Magistrate Judge

Page 2 of 2