Wilbon v. Prison Health Services, Incorporated et al

Filing 54

OPINION AND ORDER adopting 52 Report and Recommendation ; denying 18 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LOUIS ANTHONY WILBON,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 10-14075
Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

v.
PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Plaintiff filed this civil rights action against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, contending that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in
violation of the Eighth Amendment and conspired to interfere with his civil rights in
violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff filed a
motion for preliminary injunction on February 24, 2011. The Court has referred this
lawsuit to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon for all pretrial matters, including a report
and recommendation (“R&R”) on all dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B). (Docs. 20, 21.)
On June 2, 2011, Magistrate Judge Randon issued an R&R recommending that this
Court deny Plaintiff’s motion. (Doc. 52.) At the conclusion of the R&R, Magistrate
Judge Randon informs the parties that they must file any objections to the R&R within
fourteen days. (Id. at 5-6.) On June 16, 2011, Plaintiff filed a pleading entitled

“Plaintiff’s Stipulation/Agreement to Dismissal/Recall of Plaintiff’s Motion for
Preliminary Injunction as Defendants Have Reformed From Conduct Warranting
Injunction and/or Objections Pursuant to 28 [U.S.C.] sec. 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b).” (Doc. 53.) In his pleading, Plaintiff indicates that “Defendants have reformed
from the violative conduct that prompted the preliminary injunction motion, i.e., (i)
Plaintiff has been released from the infirmary/DWH; (ii) his access to law library
restored, and (iii) swollen lymph node has improved.” (Id. at 1-2.) Although contending
that Defendants continue to engage in other conduct violating his constitutional rights,
Plaintiff states that “immediate harm [arising from this conduct] appears abated.” (Id. at
2.)
Based on Plaintiff’s representations, his motion for preliminary injunction is
DENIED.1
SO ORDERED.
Date: June 30, 2011

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

The Court finds it unnecessary to deny the motion “without prejudice,” as Plaintiff requests.
If Plaintiff believes that a preliminary injunction is again needed, he can file a new motion
setting forth the conduct at that time that he believes warrants relief.

2

Copies to:
Louis Anthony Wilbon, #162532
Gus Harrison Correctional Facility
2727 East Beecher St.
Adrian, MI 49221
Kimberley Koester, Esq.
Ronald Chapman, Esq.
Thomas Leonard, Esq.
Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon

3