Santure v. Heyns et al
Filing
31
ORDER Accepting 26 Report and Recommendation re Plaintiff's 3 Motion for Class Certification and 27 Report and Recommendation re 11 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and 19 Motion for Emergency Temporary Order and Preliminary Injunction. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (Monda, H)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DANIEL SANTURE,
Plaintiff,
V.
Case No. 12-CV-15680
Honorable Denise Page Hood
DANIEL HEYNS, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION, DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Now before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub’s Report and
Recommendations. Plaintiff Daniel Santure filed this pro se prisoner civil rights
action against five Michigan Department of Corrections employees on December 26,
2012. Santure filed a Motion for Class Certification on December 26, 2012 on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated disabled prisoners within the custody and
control of the Michigan Department of Corrections. Santure also filed a Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, and Emergency Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction on January 31, 2013 and
March 18, 2013, respectively. The Magistrate Judge concludes that Santure has not
met the requirements of class certification or for entry of a temporary restraining order
or preliminary injunction. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court denies
Santure’s motions in their entirety. Santure has not filed any objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations.
The Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report
or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. An objection to the
Report and Recommendation must be timely and specific . See Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(2); E.D. Mich. L. R. 72.1(d); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 950 (6th
Cir. 1981) (“The filing of objections provides the district court with the opportunity
to consider the specific contentions of the parties and to correct any errors
immediately.”) A party’s failure to file any objections waives his or her right to
further appeal. Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373
(6th Cir. 1987). Necessarily, a party’s failure to object to the magistrate judge’s report
and recommendation relieves the Court from its duty to review the matter
independently. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The Court finds no error
in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and conclusions. Furthermore, neither party has
2
filed any objections to the Report and Recommendations. The Court deems all further
objections waived and accepts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations
in their entirety.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendations [Docket Nos. 26 and
27] are ACCEPTED as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification
[Docket No. 3, filed December 26, 2012] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction
and Temporary Restraining Order [Docket No. 11, filed January 31, 2013] is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [Docket No. 19, filed March 18, 2013]
is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
United States District Judge
Dated: July 31, 2013
3
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on July 31, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager
4
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?