United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
& ORDER (1) OVERRULING ROBINSON'S OBJECTIONS (DKT.
15), (2) ACCEPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S 5/20/19
RECOMMENDATION (DKT. 12), (3) DENYING ROBINSON'S
EMERGENCY MOTION (DKT. 10), (4) ACCEPTING THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE'S 9/4/19 RECOMMENDATION (DKT. 31), AND (5) GRANTING
ROONEY'S MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT. 18)
A. GOLDSMITH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Judge Grand has written a report and recommendation
(“R&R”) (Dkts. 12 and 31) regarding each of
two pending motions. Plaintiff Thomas Robinson has filed
objections to the first (Dkt. 15), but not the second, of
these recommendations. For the reasons stated below, the
Court adopts the magistrate judge's recommendations,
denies Robinson's emergency motion (Dkt. 10), and grants
Defendant Timothy Rooney's motion to dismiss (Dkt. 18).
factual and procedural background have been adequately set
forth by the magistrate judge and need not be repeated here
in full. In brief summary, Robinson is a defendant in a
criminal case, United States v. Robinson, No.
18-20150, currently pending before Judge Michaelson. 5/20/19
R&R at 2 (Dkt. 12). Disputes between Robinson and his
Federal Pretrial Services Officer, Defendant Timothy Rooney,
and the other Defendants in this case, led to the filing of
this civil action. Id. at 3. The magistrate judge
recommends denying Robinson's emergency motion for a
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction
against Rooney (Dkt. 12), to which Robinson objected (Dkt.
28, 2019, Rooney filed a motion to dismiss (Dkt. 18), which
the magistrate judge recommends granting (Dkt. 31). The
fourteen-day deadline for Robinson to file objections has
passed. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Court reviews de novo any portion of an R&R to which a
specific objection has been made. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Alspaugh v.
McConnell, 643 F.3d 162, 166 (6th Cir. 2011)
(“Only those specific objections to the
magistrate's report made to the district court will be
preserved for appellate review; making some objections but
failing to raise others will not preserve all the objections
a party may have.”). Any arguments made for the first
time in objections to an R&R are deemed waived. Uduko
v. Cozzens, 975 F.Supp.2d 750, 757 (E.D. Mich. 2013).
“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of
the record in order to accept the recommendation.”
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee notes to 1983
R&Rs have adequately stated the standards of review for
motions to dismiss, temporary restraining orders, and
September 4, 2019 R&R, the magistrate judge recommends
finding that the implied Bivens claim for First
Amendment and due process violations fail, because neither
the Sixth Circuit nor the Supreme Court has recognized a
Bivens remedy for such violations, and an extension
of Bivens is unwarranted where the Bail Reform Act
provides Robinson with an alternative remedy. Id. at
6-10 (Dkt. 31). The magistrate judge's reasoning is
sound. In the absence of timely objections, this is a
sufficient basis for adopting the recommendation to grant
Rooney's motion to dismiss.
the claims against Rooney are dismissed, Robinson's
motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction against Rooney is dismissed as well. “A
plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish
that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely
to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary
relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and
that an injunction is in the public interest.”
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S.
7, 20 (2008).
success on the merits of the claim against Rooney is not only
unlikely, but impossible, given that the claims against
Rooney are dismissed by this Order. This cements the
magistrate judge's conclusion that Robinson had not
“established a likelihood of success on the merits of
his claim against Rooney.” 5/20/19 R&R at 7 (Dkt.
12). Robinson's objections are too incoherent to be
parsed into discreet objections. However, he did not contest
that he bore the burden of proving likelihood of success on
the merits, see Obj. at 10 (Dkt. 15), and he did not
argue for an extension of Bivens or otherwise name a
cause of action under which his claims could be sustained,
id. at 11. Therefore, Robinson's assorted
objections to the magistrate judge's 5/20/19 R&R do
not provide any basis for overruling the recommendations; his
objections are, therefore, overruled.