White v. Jindal et al

Filing 44

Order Adopting 31 Report and Recommendation and Granting Plaintiff's 3 Motion for Immediate Temporary Injunction and Denying as Moot Plaintiff's 10 Motion for Expedited Review of Immediate Restraining Order and Denying Plaintiff's 19 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MARK WHITE, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 13-15073 ROSLYN JINDAL, et al., HONORABLE AVERN COHN Defendants. ___________________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 31) AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION (Doc. 3) AND DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXPEDITED REVIEW OF IMMEDIATE RESTRAINING ORDER (Doc. 10) AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (Doc. 19) I. This is a prisoner civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se1 and the matter has been referred to a magistrate judge for all pretrial proceedings. Plaintiff raises a host of claims against defendants, all of whom are either employees or otherwise affiliated with the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC). Plaintiff filed a Emergency Motion for Immediate Temporary Injunction to Prevent Physical Injury or Death (Doc. 3), a Motion for Expedited Review for Immediate 1 Plaintiff recently filed a motion for the appointment of counsel which is pending before the magistrate judge. (Doc. 39). Restraining/Injunctive Order (Doc. 10), and a motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 19). The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (MJRR), recommending that plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Immediate Temporary Injunction be granted, that plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Review for Immediate Restraining/ Injunctive Order be denied as moot, and plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings be denied. As to the form of injunctive relief, the magistrate judge recommends that the Court order “Defendants to transfer Plaintiff to an MDOC facility that does not have a ‘high concentration’ of members of the Gangster’s Disciples prison gang.” (Doc. 31 at p. 3). This is so because the magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff has met his burden of showing injunctive relief is warranted based on his fear for his safety. II. No party has filed objections to the MJRR and the time for filing objections has passed.2 The parties' failure to file objections to the report and recommendation 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 magistrate judge's report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the motion. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). However, the Court has reviewed the MJRR and agrees with the magistrate judge that plaintiff is entitled to a form of injunctive relief and is not 2 Not only did defendants not object to the MJRR but they also did not respond to plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief with regard to his transfer request due to his safety concerns. As the magistrate judge noted, defendants’ failure to respond is troubling. See MJRR at p. 11. 2 entitled to judgment on the pleadings. Accordingly, plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Immediate Temporary Injunction is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Review for Immediate Restraining/Injunctive Order is DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED. Defendants shall transfer plaintiff to an MDOC facility that does not have a “high concentration” of members of the Gangster’s Disciples prison gang. SO ORDERED. S/Avern Cohn AVERN COHN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: April 22, 2014 Detroit, Michigan I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of record on this date, April 22, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. S/Sakne Chami Case Manager, (313) 234-5160 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?