Northington v. Abdellatif et al
Filing
82
ORDER Adopting 73 Report and Recommendation,GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART: 42 Motion for Order, Motion to Sever filed by Eunice Taylor, Tanya Cunningham, Jeffrey C. Stieve, Daniel Heyns, Lisa Adray, Heidi Washington, 56 Motion for Order, Motion to Sever filed by Gary Kirstein AND 62 Motion for Leave to File filed by Gary Northington ; AND DENYING 63 Motion for TRO filed by Gary Northington. Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DTof)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GARY NORTHINGTON,
Case No. 16-12931
Plaintiff,
Paul D. Borman
United States District Judge
v.
BADAWI M. ABDELLATIF, et al.,
Mona K. Majzoub
United States Magistrate Judge
Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER:
1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 73);
2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART STATE
DEFENDANTS’ AND STATE DEFENDANT KERSTEIN’S
MOTIONS TO REVOKE PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA PAUPERIS
STATUS AND TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO
SEVER (ECF NOS. 42, 56);
3) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR INJUNCTION
(ECF NO. 62); AND
4) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR INJUNCTION
(ECF NO. 63)
On April 7, 2017, Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub issued a Report and
Recommendation regarding several motions pending in this case. (ECF No. 73,
Report and Recommendation.) In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate
Judge recommended that this Court grant in part and deny in part the two Motions
to Revoke Plaintiff’s In Forma Pauperis Status and to Dismiss, or in the
Alternative to Sever (ECF Nos. 42, 56) that were filed collectively by various State
Defendants in this action. The Magistrate Judge also recommended that the Court
grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Injunction (ECF No. 62), and that
the Court deny Plaintiff’s First Amended Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
and/or Injunction (ECF No. 63).
Having thoroughly reviewed the Report and Recommendation and there
being no timely objections filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich
L.R. 72.1(d), the Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation.
Accordingly, the Court hereby:
- ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s April 7, 2017 Report and Recommendation
(ECF No. 73);
- DENIES the State Defendants’ Motions to Revoke Plaintiff’s In Forma
Pauperis Status and to Dismiss, or in the Alternative to Sever (ECF Nos. 42,
56), to the extent that they seek an order revoking Plaintiff’s in forma
pauperis status;
- GRANTS the State Defendants’ Motions to Revoke Plaintiff’s In Forma
Pauperis Status and to Dismiss, or in the Alternative to Sever (ECF Nos. 42,
56), to the extent that they seek dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against
Defendants Allen and Nichols;
- DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants
Charles Allen and Bobby Echols relating to denial of dental care;
2
- GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order and/or Injunction (ECF No. 62), to the extent
that it requests that the Court consider Plaintiff’s First Amended Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 63) on the merits;
- DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order and/or Injunction (ECF No. 62), to the extent
that it seeks any further relief; and
- DENIES Plaintiff’s First Amended Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
(ECF No. 63).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Paul D. Borman
Paul D. Borman
United States District Judge
Dated: May 22, 2017
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon
each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail
on May 22, 2017.
s/D. Tofil
Deborah Tofil, 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?