Ragland v. Raby

Filing 151

ORDER ADOPTING 150 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS 144 MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

KEVIN DARNELL RAGLAND,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 08-15253

JASON SCHNEIDER,

HONORABLE AVERN COHN

Defendant.
___________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 150)
AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Doc. 144)
I.
This is a prisoner civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claimed that
several defendants, police officers from the Oak Park and Southfield Police
Departments, violated his constitutional rights while effectuating his arrest and denying
him proper medical care. The matter has been referred to a magistrate judge for all
pretrial proceedings. Following dispositive motions by defendants, only plaintiff’s claims
against Southfield police officer Jason Schneider remain.
Thereafter, plaintiff also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order or
preliminary injunction, essentially complaining about inadequate law materials at the
prison facility. On December 6, 2012, the magistrate judge issued a report and
recommendation (MJRR) that the motion be denied. The magistrate judge reasoned
that because plaintiff is no longer housed at the correctional facility where he alleges the

law library was inadequate, his claims for injunctive relief were mooted by his transfer.
Neither party has objected to the MJRR and the time for objections has passed.1
II.
The failure to file objections to the MJRR waives any further right to appeal.
Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987).
Likewise, the failure to object to the MJRR releases the Court from its duty to
independently review the motions. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
However, the Court has reviewed the MJRR and agrees with the magistrate judge.
III.
Accordingly, the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are ADOPTED
as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining
order or preliminary injunction is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2013

S/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of
record on this date, January 10, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Sakne Chami
Case Manager, [phone]

1

The MJRR stated that objections were to be filed within 14 days of service.
Accounting for service and Court holidays, objections were due at least by December
26, 2012.
2