Hankins v. Woodard et al
ORDER (1) Overruling 26 Objections to 25 Report and Recommendation, (2) Granting Defendants' 19 Motion for Summary Judgment, and (3) Denying Plaintiff's 24 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
RUSSELL HANKINS #160532,
Case No. 16-cv-13845
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
JOHN WOODARD, and
ORDER (1) OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION (ECF #25); (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #19); AND (3) DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (ECF # 24)
In this action Plaintiff Russell Hankins, an inmate in the Michigan Department
of Corrections, complains that Defendants John Woodard and Mark Tenniswood,
two MDOC employees, wrongfully sanctioned him for a misconduct ticket and
caused him to lose pay from his inmate employment. Hankins asserts claims under
the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
The Defendants moved for summary judgment both for lack of exhaustion of
remedies and on the ground that they are entitled to qualified immunity. (See ECF
#19.) The assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which
she suggested that the Court grant the motion (the “R & R”). The Magistrate Judge
also recommended that the Court deny Hankins’ motion for preliminary injunction.
Hankins has filed objections to the R & R. (See ECF #26.) For the reasons explained
below, the Court OVERRULES the objections.
Hankins’ first objection relates to the Defendants’ failure to exhaust
administrative remedies defense. This objection is misplaced because the Magistrate
Judge did not recommend that the Court grant relief based upon that defense.
Hankins’ second objection makes several references to the Double Jeopardy
Clause. But Hankins’ Complaint does not assert a claim for violation of his rights
under that Clause. Nor has Hankins shown that the Clause has any applicability
Hankins’ third objection is directed toward the denial of his motion for
preliminary injunction. But because Hankins’ claims fail as a matter of law, he is
not entitled to injunctive relief.
Finally, Hankins ends his objections with a request to amend his Complaint.
He says he wants make clear “that Defendants intentional infliction of emotional
[sic] in harassment/retaliation for the protected conduct….” (Objection, ECF #26 at
Pg. ID 162.)
The Court will not allow the proposed amendment. The proposed
amendment does not cure the deficiency identified by the Magistrate Judge –
namely, that Hankins has failed to identify any conduct that would qualify as
“protected conduct” for purposes of his First Amendment retaliation claim. Nor has
Hankins showed his new proposed allegation would establish the viability of any
current or potential claim.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Hankins’ objections to the R & R are OVERRULED.
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: September 25, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on September 25, 2017, by electronic means and/or
s/Holly A. Monda
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?