Williamson v. Hass et al

Filing 59

ORDER Adopting 50 Report and Recommendation, Denying in Part and Holding in Abeyance in Part 23 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Motion for TRO filed by Rodney Williamson. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (SGam)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
RODNEY WILLIAMSON,
Plaintiff,
v

Case No. 13-cv-11066
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington
Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon

RANDALL HAAS, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING IN PART AND
HOLDING IN ABEYANCE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
On October 3, 2013, Plaintiff Rodney Williamson filed a motion for emergency
preliminary injunction. Williamson sought an injunction requiring Defendants to provide him
with a therapeutic diabetic diet, medical shoes, an eye examination, and educational programs
regarding diabetes management.
On February 12, 2014, Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon issued a report recommending
that Williamson’s request for an injunction be denied with respect to his request for a diabetic
diet, medical shoes, and an eye examination. Rep.& Rec. 4, ECF No. 50. Judge Randon
determined that Williamson could not show a strong likelihood of success on the merits
regarding his request for a diabetic diet because Williamson’s claim that Defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs had previously been dismissed. Id. at 2. In
addition, Judge Randon found that Williamson’s request for medical shoes and an eye
examination “are unrelated to the claims raised in Williamson’s Complaint, and therefore,
Williamson cannot show a strong likelihood of success on the merits.” Id. at 3.

Regarding Williamson’s request for educational programs about diabetes management,
Judge Randon noted that Defendants did not address this request in their response. Id.
Accordingly, Judge Randon recommended holding Williamson’s request for education programs
in abeyance until Defendants had a chance to respond. Id. at 4.
Although the Magistrate Judge’s report explicitly stated that the parties to this action may
object to and seek review of the recommendation within fourteen days of service of the report,
neither Plaintiff nor Defendant filed any objections. The election not to file objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the record.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The failure to file objections to the report and
recommendation waives any further right to appeal.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
(ECF No. 50) is ADOPTED.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Emergency Preliminary Injunction
and Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 23) is DENIED IN PART AND HELD IN
ABEYANCE IN PART. Plaintiff’s requests for a therapeutic diabetic diet, medical shoes, and
eye examinations are DENIED. Plaintiff’s request for enrollment in educational programs is
HELD IN ABEYANCE.
s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge
Dated: March 11, 2014
PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney of record herein by electronic means and upon
Rodney Williamson #186967 at Chippewa Correctional Facility, Central
Complex, 4269 W. M-80, Kincheloe, MI 49784 by first class U.S. mail
on March 11, 2014
s/Tracy A. Jacobs
TRACY A. JACOBS

-2-