Koetje v. Norton et al

Filing 46

ORDER Regarding Report and Recommendation as to Motion for Injunctive Relief. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DONNA KOETJE,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 13-12739
Honorable Denise Page Hood

v.
AMANDA NORTON, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER REGARDING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AS TO MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder’s Report
and Recommendation filed October 23, 2013 [Doc. No. 18]. An objection was filed
on November 1, 2013.
The decision and order of a non-dispositive motion by a magistrate judge will
be upheld unless it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). Any appeal of or objections to a magistrate judge’s order must
be made within 14 days of the entry of the order, must specify the part of the order the
party objects to, and state the basis for the objection. E.D. Mich. LR 72.1; 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). Objections that are only general and are not specific
waive the right to appeal. See Howard v. Secretary of HHS, 923 F.2d 505, 508-09
(6th Cir. 1991). In a non-dispositive order entered by a magistrate judge, a district

judge shall consider such objections and shall modify or set aside any portion of the
magistrate judge’s order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence
to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and
firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. United States
Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 398 (1948); Hagaman v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, 958 F.2d 684, 690 (6th Cir. 1992). Rule 72(a) provides considerable
deference to the determinations of the magistrate judges. In re Search Warrants, 889
F.Supp. 296, 298 (S.D. Ohio 1995). The Magistrate Judge’s decision on a dispositive
motion will be reviewed de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Vogel v. U.S. Office
Products Co., 258 F.3d 509, 515 (6th Cir. 2001).
It is noted that no response was filed to the initial Motion for Injunctive Relief
because Defendants had not been served. However, Defendant Jeffrey Stieves filed
a special appearance to object to the Report and Recommendation asserting that the
temporary restraining order was unwarranted. Defendant Stieves submitted health
care records noting that Plaintiff’s concern regarding the ileostomy bags was noted
and addressed Defendant Stieves indicates Plaintiff has a regular call-out scheduled
to have Plaintiff’s ileostomy supplies replaced, but Plaintiff does not always appear
for her scheduled call-out to pick up her supplies. Defendant Stieves indicates that
2

while Plaintiff may be having some difficulty managing her ileostomy care, Defendant
will work with Plaintiff, through the health care staff, to continue to improve the
education of Plaintiff on the routines of her ileostomy care and address her concerns
stated in the motion.
Plaintiff did not file a response to Defendant Stieves’ Objection and there is no
indication since the Objection was filed that Plaintiff was having any further
difficulties with her ileostomy supplies.

In Defendant Stieves’ Objection, he

essentially agrees to work with Plaintiff regarding her ileostomy care. Therefore, the
Court finds that Defendant Stieves agrees to the temporary restraining order in that he
asserts he will work with Plaintiff, through the health care staff, to continue to educate
Plaintiff on the routines of her ileostomy care. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 18) is
ACCEPTED, but MODIFIED by Defendant Stieves’ statements in his Objections that
he will work with Plaintiff regarding her ileostomy care.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. No.
16) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as modified above.
S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
United States District Judge
Dated: May 16, 2014
3

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on May 16, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

4