United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER (1) REJECTING PLAINTIFF'S
OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION, (2) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER, AND (3) LIFTING INJUNCTION
V. PARKER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
matter presently is before the Court on Plaintiff's
emergency motion for a temporary restraining order to enjoin
Defendants from transferring Plaintiff to a different prison
facility. Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis, to whom
the matter has been referred for all pretrial proceedings,
issued a Report and Recommendation on July 3, 2018,
recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff's motion.
(ECF No. 115.) In light of the exigencies of the matter, this
Court ordered the parties to file objections to the R&R
on or before July 6, 2018. (ECF No. 116.) Any response to any
objections were to be filed on or before July 10, 2018.
(Id.) The Court enjoined Defendants from
transferring Plaintiff until it had the opportunity to review
and rule on any objections. (Id.)
filed objections to the R&R on July 6, 2018. (ECF No.
117.) Defendants filed responses to Plaintiff's
objections on July 10, 2018. (ECF No. 118, 119.)
objections are filed to a magistrate judge's R&R on a
dispositive matter,  the Court “make[s] a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court, however,
“is not required to articulate all of the reasons it
rejects a party's objections.” Thomas v.
Halter, 131 F.Supp.2d 942, 944 (E.D. Mich. 2001)
(citations omitted). A party's failure to file objections
to certain conclusions of the report and recommendation
waives any further right to appeal on those issues. See
Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829
F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to
object to certain conclusions in the magistrate judge's
report releases the Court from its duty to independently
review those issues. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140, 149 (1985).
motion, Plaintiff claims that Defendants are transferring him
to another facility in retaliation for his pursuit of this
litigation. The Court must consider four factors in deciding
whether to grant Plaintiff's request for an injunction:
(1) whether Plaintiff has a strong likelihood of success on
the merits; (2) whether Plaintiff is likely to suffer
irreparable injury without the injunction; (3) whether
issuance of the injunction would cause substantial harm to
others; and (4) whether the public interest would be served
by issuance of the injunction. Tumblebus Inc. v.
Cranmer, 399 F.3d 754, 760 (6th Cir. 2005). No. single
factor is controlling; however, “a finding that there
is simply no likelihood of success on the merits is usually
fatal.” Gonzales v. Nat'l Bd. of Med.
Exam'rs, 225 F.3d 620, 625 (6th Cir. 2000). The
movant bears the burden of demonstrating entitlement to an
injunction. Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cty.
Gov't, 305 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2002).
succeed on a First Amendment retaliation claim, the plaintiff
must show: (1) that he engaged in protected conduct; (2) the
defendant took an adverse action that would deter a person of
ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that conduct,
and (3) the adverse action was taken at least in part because
of the exercise of the protected conduct. Thaddeus-X v.
Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 393 (6th Cir. 1999). Magistrate
Judge Davis concluded that Plaintiff presented “very
little evidence to establish likelihood of success of the
merits of his claims.” (R&R at 6, ECF No. 115 at Pg
ID 1904.) Magistrate Judge Davis assumed that Plaintiff had
engaged in protected conduct, but found no evidence to
support the remaining elements of his claim. (Id. at
6-8, Pg ID 1904-06.) As to the causal connection requirement,
Magistrate Judge Davis wrote that “[P]laintiff provides
no evidence, either by way of declaration, affidavit,
testimony, documents or otherwise to tie together his
[protected conduct] with the pending transfer.”
(Id. at 7, Pg ID 1905.)
objections contain much hyperbole and argument, but again no
evidence to show that the decision to transfer him to another
facility was made in some part because of his protected
conduct. Plaintiff attaches hundreds of pages of exhibits to
his objections but, again, the evidence therein relates to
his alleged denial of adequate medical care rather than the
transfer decision. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have
fabricated the reason for the transfer, but offers nothing to
substantiate that claim. As reflected in the cases cited by
Magistrate Judge Davis in her R&R, conclusory allegations
of retaliatory motive are insufficient to show a likelihood
of success on the merits. (R&R at 8, ECF No. 115 at Pg ID
objections, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the remaining
preliminary injunction factors warrant relief. First,
Plaintiff merely speculates about a new facility's
ability to meet his health care needs. He spends much time
pointing out how those needs are not being met by the medical
providers at his current location, but this does nothing to
show a likelihood of irreparable harm if he is transferred.
While a transfer may make it more difficult for Plaintiff and
his counsel to meet in person, this does not demonstrate
irreparable harm. Second, Plaintiff's assertion of public
harm-that is, “permit[ting] baseless claims of sexual
harassment to dictate decision making (Obj. at 13, ECF No.
117 at Pg ID 1932)- is premised on Plaintiff's assertion
that Defendants' reason for his transfer is fabricated.
Again, however, Plaintiff has presented no evidence to
support this conclusory assertion.
these reasons, the Court rejects Plaintiff's objections
to Magistrate Judge Davis' July 3, 2018 R&R and
adopts her recommendation to DENY
Plaintiff's emergency motion for a TRO and preliminary
injunction. The Court therefore lifts its order enjoining
Defendants from transferring Plaintiff.
IS SO ORDERED.
 Under the Local Rules for the Eastern
District of Michigan, a motion for injunctive relief is a
dispositive motion. E.D. ...