United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMENDATION
[#72] TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S “EMERGENCY MOTION FOR
COURT ORDER TO GO TO OUTSIDE DETROIT RECEIVING HOSPTIAL
NON-MDOC CONTRACTED HOSPITAL” [#25]
Page Hood Chief Judge, United States District Court
matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation
(Doc #72) filed by Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub on
Plaintiff Brian Bonner's “Emergency Motion for
Court Order to Go to Outside Detroit Receiving Hospital
Non-MDOC Contracted Hospital” (Doc #25)
(“Bonner's motion”). No objections have been
filed to the Report and Recommendation, and the time to file
objections has passed.
standard of review by the district court when examining a
Report and Recommendation is set forth in 28 U.S.C. §
636. This Court “shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report of the
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which an
objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The
court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
judge.” Id. In order to preserve the right to
appeal the magistrate judge's recommendation, a party
must file objections to the Report and Recommendation within
fourteen (14) days of service of the Report and
Recommendation. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file
specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right
of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985);
Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932
F.2d 505, 508-09 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v.
Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).
determining whether to grant a motion for preliminary
injunctive relief, a court should consider whether (1) the
movant has shown a strong or substantial likelihood of
success on the merits; (2) the movant will suffer irreparable
injury without the injunctive relief; (3) the injunctive
relief will cause substantial harm to others; and (4) the
public interest will be served if the injunction issues.
Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty.
Gov't, 305 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir.
2002)(citation omitted). “[A] party moving for a
preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a
relationship between the injury claimed in the party's
motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.”
Colvin v. Caruso, 605 F.3d 282, 300 (6th Cir.
2010)(citation omitted). “This is because the purpose
of interim equitable relief is to protect the movant, during
the pendency of the action, from being harmed or further
harmed in the manner in which the movant contends he was
or will be harmed through the illegality alleged in
the complaint.” Id. (citation and internal
quotation marks and alterations omitted; emphasis added).
That is, “[i]f the plaintiff's claim in the motion
for injunctive relief does not relate to the plaintiff's
original claim in the complaint, injunctive relief is
improper.” Rayford v. Millay, No. 1-14-00122,
2015 WL 2454673, at *1 (M.D. Tenn. May 22, 2015) (citing
De Beers Consul. Mines v. U.S., 325 U.S. 212, 220
(1945); Colvin, supra, 605 F.3d at 299-300).
reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, the Court finds that her conclusions and
findings are correct. Plaintiff has been released on parole
(Doc #70) and is no longer in the custody of the Michigan
Department of Corrections. Plaintiff is free to seek his own
medical care and go to any hospital he chooses.
Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief is
moot. Garrison v. Dutcher, No. 1:07-cv-642, 2010 WL
165807, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 12, 2010), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 1:07-CV-642, 2010 WL 1658744
(W.D. Mich. Apr. 23, 2010) (prisoner plaintiff's release
from incarceration rendered his claims for injunctive relief
moot). For these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff
failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits.
no error in the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, the Court adopts the Report and
Recommendation in its entirety. Furthermore, as neither party
has raised an objection to the Report and Recommendation, the
Court finds that the parties have waived any further
objections to the Report and Recommendation. Smith v.
Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370,
1373 (6th Cir. 1987) (a party's failure to file any
objections waives his or her right to further appeal);
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
reasons set forth above, IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge
Mona K. Majzoub's Report and Recommendation (Doc #72) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as this Court's findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Bonner's “Emergency
Motion for Court Order to Go to Outside Detroit Receiving
Hospital Non-MDOC ...