United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division
OPINION AND ORDER
T. Neff, United States District Judge.
15, 2018, Plaintiff initiated this prisoner civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He subsequently
filed motions to transfer to a new facility and for
injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 17, 24 & 40). On March 4,
2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
(R&R), recommending that this Court deny the motions.
Additionally, Plaintiff filed several non-dispositive motions
(ECF Nos. 19, 23, 30, 37, 45 & 48), which the Magistrate
Judge denied in an Order also issued on March 4, 2019 (ECF
No. 52). Now pending before the Court are Plaintiff's
Objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 59) and
his appeal from the Magistrate Judge's Order (ECF No.
61). Defendants did not file any response to either
Plaintiff's objections or his appeal. For the following
reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff's objection and
denies his appeal.
Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and
presents three objections to the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation. In accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A) and W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b), the Court
has performed de novo consideration of those portions of the
Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made.
Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in
determining that he had not demonstrated “a strong
likelihood of success on the merits, ” the first factor
in the multi-factor test for injunctive relief (Objs., ECF
No. 59 at PageID.287). According to Plaintiff, “these
Defendants clearly recognize the specific threat to Mr.
Tippins described in the kite and disregarded the risk to
Plaintiff's safety” (id.). However, as the
Magistrate Judge pointed out, Plaintiff was unable to offer
any specifics regarding the alleged threats against him, and
Defendants were unable to verify the alleged threats during
their investigation (R&R, ECF No. 53 at PageID.269).
Plaintiff's mere assertion to the contrary does not
demonstrate any factual or legal error in the Magistrate
Judge's analysis. Therefore, his first objection is
Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in
determining that he had not demonstrated any
“irreparable injury” (Objs., ECF No. 59 at
PageID.288-290). Plaintiff opines that “he has shown
that he faces irreparable injury if he had to stay at Alger
Correctional Facility because of the longstanding [sic] of
violence at the prison and the fact that inmates are aware of
the hit that was taken out on him” (id. at
PageID.290). Again, Plaintiff's mere assertion reveals no
factual or legal error in the Magistrate Judge's
determination that Plaintiff has not shown that he is
subjected to any verifiable threat. Therefore, his
second objection is also denied.
Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in weighing
the third and fourth factors against issuing injunctive
relief (Objs., ECF No. 59 at PageID.291-293). According to
Plaintiff, “[t]he interference by this federal district
court in administration of this state prison matter is not
necessary [sic] disruptive” (id. at
PageID.291). Plaintiff argues that “Defendants had
shown that they will continue to disregard an objectively
intolerable risk of harm and has demonstrated the continuance
of that disregard during the remainder of the litigation and
into the future” (id. at PageID.292). The
Magistrate Judge properly pointed out that absent a
sufficient showing of a violation of constitutional rights,
public welfare militates against the issuance of
extraordinary relief in the prison context (R&R, ECF No.
53 at PageID.270, citing Glover v. Johnson, 855 F.2d
277, 286-87 (6th Cir. 1988)). Plaintiff's mere assertion
to the contrary does not reveal any error in the Magistrate
Judge's determination that the necessarily high showing
has not been made in this case. Therefore, Plaintiff's
third objection is denied. Accordingly, the Court will adopt
the Report and Recommendation as the Opinion of the Court.
Appeal from the Magistrate Judge's Order
March 4, 2019 Order (ECF No. 52), the Magistrate Judge
resolved six non-dispositive motions filed by Plaintiff (ECF
Nos. 19, 23, 30, 37, 45 & 48). In his appeal from the
Order, Plaintiff challenges the Magistrate Judge's denial
of only three of the six motions (ECF Nos. 30, 45 & 48).
on November 28, 2018, Plaintiff moved for leave to depose
Defendants (ECF No. 30). The Magistrate Judge denied the
motion, determining that Plaintiff was not required to seek
leave to depose Defendants (ECF No. 52 at PageID.265). In his
appeal from the Magistrate Judge's Order, Plaintiff does
not assert any error by the Magistrate Judge but points out
that “[i]f Mr. Tippins is only required to submit
Notices, which he has, the docket entries has yet to identify
the Notice” (ECF No. 61 at PageID.328). The Court
observes that the docket includes entries reflecting
Plaintiff's Notice of Deposition (ECF No. 57),
Certificate of Service of Notice of Deposition (ECF No. 70),
and supplement regarding notice of deposition (ECF No. 73).
Plaintiff's appeal from this portion of the Magistrate
Judge's Order is denied.
on February 13, 2019, Plaintiff moved to compel certain
discovery from Defendants (ECF No. 45). The Magistrate Judge
determined the discovery had been provided and that
Plaintiff's discovery request was therefore properly
denied as moot (ECF No. 52 at PageID.265). In his appeal,
Plaintiff delineates five documents, six admissions and six
interrogatories that he contends remain outstanding (ECF No.
61 at PageID.325-326). However, as pointed out by the
Magistrate Judge, the docket includes entries reflecting
Defendants served their responses to Plaintiff's
discovery requests on February 7 and 21, 2019 (ECF Nos. 43
& 50). Plaintiff therefore fails to demonstrate that the
Magistrate Judge's resolution of his motion is either
clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A). To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to
challenge the sufficiency of the discovery he received,
Plaintiff's argument also fails to demonstrate any error
where Plaintiff has failed to submit or sufficiently describe
the discovery requests in dispute. See W.D. Mich.
LCivR 7.1(b) (requiring that all discovery motions
“shall set forth verbatim, or have attached, the
relevant discovery request and answer or objection”).
on February 14, 2019, Plaintiff moved for leave to allow
“additional interrogatories” (ECF No. 48 at
PageID.250). The Magistrate Judge denied the request because
Defendant failed to explain why he needed additional
interrogatories (ECF No. 52 at PageID.266). In his appeal,
Plaintiff does not dispute that his motion failed to supply
any basis for his request. Plaintiff therefore again fails to
demonstrate that the Magistrate Judge's resolution of his
motion is either clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Further, to the
extent Plaintiff asserts that he needs to
“rephrase” certain interrogatories (ECF No. 61 at
PageID.327), it appears that Plaintiff served such rephrased
interrogatories on Defendants on March 11, 2019 (Certificate
of Service, ECF No. 62). In sum, Plaintiff's appeal is
IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Objections
(ECF No. 59) are DENIED and the Report and Recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 53) is ...