Christian v. Michigan Department of Corrections-Health Services et al
Filing
36
ORDER Adopting 33 Report and Recommendation,Denying 13 Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Aubrey Christian,and Denying 22 Motion for TRO, Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Aubrey Christian Signed by District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III. (CCoh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
AUBREY CHRISTIAN,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 12-cv-12936
v.
HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS - HEALTH SERVICES, et
al.,
Defendant.
/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (docket
no. 33) AND DENYING MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
(docket no. 13) AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (docket no. 22)
This is a prisoner civil rights case. Plaintiff Aubrey Christian, proceeding pro se,
contests the conditions of his detention at the Michigan Department of Corrections under
42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging denial of medical care and cruel and unusual punishment. On
November 16, 2012, Christian filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin
the Michigan Department of Corrections from transferring him to another correctional
institution. ECF No. 13. On December 20, 2012, Christian filed a motion seeking a
temporary restraining order that would require the Michigan Department of Corrections to
send him to a pain management doctor to receive a treatment plan. ECF No. 22. The Court
referred the motion to the Magistrate Judge. On January 28, 2013, the Magistrate Judge
issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report"). ECF No. 33. In her report, the Magistrate
Judge recommended that the Court deny both of Christian's motions.
The Magistrate Judge found that Sixth Circuit precedents made clear that, standing
alone, the possibility or even existence of a prisoner's transfer to a different facility does not
rise to the level of adverse action. There was no evidence to suggest that Christian
presented anything more than the speculation that a transfer may occur in the future, and
no evidence a transfer would in any event constitute a Constitutional violation. Particularly
in light of the federal courts' reluctance to scrutinize prisoner placement decisions, the
Magistrate Judge concluded Christian's motion for a preliminary injunction should be
denied. Report at 5-7.
The Magistrate Judge also found that Christian had not put forth a showing of a
likelihood of success on the merits of his underlying Eighth Amendment claim necessary
to support an injunction or restraining order. For example, at least one defendant made a
showing that Christian failed to exhaust his administrative remedies which would negate
his claim against that defendant. Report at 8. More importantly, the allegations did not, for
the purposes of this order, appear to demonstrate Christian received constitutionally
deficient medical care such that he could demonstrate the likelihood of success on the
merits. The Magistrate Judge therefore concluded his motion for a temporary restraining
order should be denied. Report at 10-12.
Civil Rule 72(b) governs review of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
De novo review of the magistrate judge’s findings is only required if the parties “serve and
file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(2). Nevertheless, because a district judge always retains jurisdiction over a motion
after referring it to a magistrate judge, he is entitled to review the magistrate judge's
findings of fact and conclusions of law on his own initiative. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140, 154 (1985) (clarifying that while a district court judge need not review a report and
recommendation “de novo if no objections are filed, it does not preclude further review by
2
the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other
standard”).
Because neither party filed objections to the Report, de novo review of the Report's
conclusions is not required. Having reviewed the Report's analysis, in light of the record,
the Court finds that its conclusions are factually based and legally sound. Accordingly, it
will adopt the Report's findings and deny the motion for class certification.
ORDER
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (docket
no. 33) is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (docket
no. 13) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order
(docket no. 22) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
s/Stephen J. Murphy, III
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
United States District Judge
Dated: February 19, 2013
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or
counsel of record on February 19, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Carol Cohron
Case Manager
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?