Lane v. Whipple et al

Filing 34

ORDER ACCEPTING and Adopting Report and Recommendation for 28 CORRECTED Report and Recommendation Denying 18 Motion for Preliminary Injunction - Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (LBar)

Case 2:20-cv-13444-NGE-EAS ECF No. 34, PageID.297 Filed 12/06/21 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KEITH LANE,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 20-13444

v.

Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

CONNIE WHIPPLE, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
OCTOBER 6, 2021 CORRECTED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [28]
This is a pro se prisoner civil rights lawsuit filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Plaintiff
Keith Lane alleging he has been denied adequate medical care while in the custody of
the Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”). (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff moves for a
preliminary injunction requiring Defendants to provide him with a neurological
examination. (ECF No. 18.) This case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth
A. Stafford for all pre-trial matters. (ECF No. 15.) Before the Court is the Magistrate
Judge’s October 6, 2021 corrected report and recommendation to deny Plaintiff’s motion
for a preliminary injunction.1 (ECF No. 28.) Despite the Court extending the time to file
objections to the report and recommendation, Plaintiff did not file timely objections.2
“[T]he failure to object to the magistrate judge’s report[] releases the Court from its duty

1

The corrected report and recommendation supersedes the original report and
recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge one day earlier. (ECF No. 27.)
2
As a general rule, a party has fourteen days to file objections to a report and
recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff moved for an extension of that 14
day period by 180 days. (ECF No. 30.) The Court granted his request for an extension
in part and gave Plaintiff until November 22, 2021 to file his objections. Plaintiff’s
objections were not filed until one day later—on November 23, 2021.  
1 

Case 2:20-cv-13444-NGE-EAS ECF No. 34, PageID.298 Filed 12/06/21 Page 2 of 3

to independently review the matter.” See Hall v. Rawal, No. 09-10933, 2012 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 120541, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 24, 2012) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149
(1985)). Nonetheless, the Court has considered Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 33) and
conducted a de novo review of the record. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff has not met his heavy burden of showing a strong likelihood of success on
the merits of his underlying deliberate indifference claim or irreparable injury absent an
injunction. Plaintiff notes in his objections that he has not been taken back to Henry Ford
Hospital for a second time and that he has more than just headaches. However, medical
records indicate that MDOC reviewers evaluated Plaintiff, taking into account all of his
symptoms, and concluded that his medical condition could be managed by onsite
providers. (See, e.g., ECF No. 1, PageID.84-86.) As the Magistrate Judge noted,
“disagreement over the wisdom or correctness of a medical judgment is [not] sufficient
for the purpose of a deliberate indifference claim.” See Rhinehart v. Scutt, 509 F. App’x
510, 513 (6th Cir. 2013). And while Plaintiff avers he has not been able to obtain expert
medical testimony or given proper access to the law library, his pleadings demonstrate
an ability to represent himself and the Court finds it has before it sufficient information to
rule on his motion for the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction. For the
foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections and ACCEPTS AND
ADOPTS the corrected report and recommendation (ECF No. 28). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 18) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
s/Nancy G. Edmunds
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge
Dated: December 6, 2021
2 

Case 2:20-cv-13444-NGE-EAS ECF No. 34, PageID.299 Filed 12/06/21 Page 3 of 3

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
on December 6, 2021, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Bartlett
Case Manager

3