B.R.-S.O.H. LLC (Sons of Hemp) et al v. Detroit, City of

Filing 26

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 9] AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS' EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [DOC. 4] Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

B.R. - S.O.H. LLC (Sons of Hemp), et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

Case No. 17-11093

CITY OF DETROIT,

HON. AVERN COHN

Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 9)
AND
DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Doc. 4).
As best as can be gleaned, this is a civil rights case. Plaintiffs - a group of
individuals who operate medical marijuana clinics - filed a complaint against the City of
Detroit seeking a declaration that city ordinances 31-15 and 30-15 pertaining to medical
marijuana are unconstitutional. Plaintiffs also assert claims under RICO and the due
process clause of the 14th Amendment.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction (Doc. 4) which the Court referred to a magistrate judge for report and
recommendation (Doc. 5). The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation
(MJRR), recommending that the motion be denied. (Doc. 9). The magistrate judge also
issued an order to show cause as to why the case should not be dismissed based on
res judicata and Rooker-Feldman. (Doc. 10).
Plaintiffs filed a document styled “Reply to United States Magistrate Judge David

R. Grand’s Report and Recommendation and Show Cause Brief.” (Doc. 16). Plaintiffs
also filed a document styled “Response to United States Magistrate Judge David R.
Grand’s Report and Recommendation and Show Cause Brief.” (Doc. 17). These
documents appears to address the Magistrate Judge’s MJRR and order to show cause.
A district court must conduct a de novo review of the parts of a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation to which a party objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The district “court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate” judge. Id.
Having reviewed plaintiffs’ filings, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge that
plaintiffs’ motion should be denied. Nothing in plaintiffs’ filings convince the Court that
the magistrate judge erred in its analysis or recommendation that plaintiffs are not
entitled to a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.
Accordingly, the MJRR is ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the
Court. Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction is
DENIED.
The Court will await the magistrate judge’s ruling on its order to show cause.
SO ORDERED.

S/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: June 5, 2017
Detroit, Michigan

2