Lewis v. Greason et al

Filing 90

ORDER Overruling 86 Objections; Denying 88 Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections; and Accepting and Adopting 81 Report and Recommendation Denying 55 Motion for TRO; and Denying as Moot 52 , 72 Motions to Stay - Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (LBar)

Case 2:21-cv-11939-NGE-KGA ECF No. 90, PageID.1123 Filed 09/27/22 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TOM LEWIS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:21-cv-11939
Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds
Magistrate Judge Kimberly G. Altman

v.
ALAN GREASON, REGINA JENKINSGRANT, CHRISTINA RAMSEY,
JEFFREY LUZIUS, MELODY WALLACE,
RICHARD RUSSELL, FNU CAMPBELL,
UNKNOWN MAILROOM PERSONNEL,
and UNKNOWN TRANSFER COORDINATOR,
Defendants.
______________________________/

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS [86];
DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS [88];
AND ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING AUGUST 31, 2022 REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION [81] TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TRO [55] AND DENY
AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO STAY [52, 72];
AND
ORDER OVERRULING RULE 72(a) OBJECTIONS [71, 80]; VACATING SCHEDULING
ORDER; AND DENYING REMAINING PENDING MOTIONS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO
BEING REFILED BY COUNSEL AFTER STAY IS LIFTED [79, 83, 84]
This is a prisoner civil rights case. Plaintiff Tom Lewis, proceeding pro se, filed an
amended complaint on February 2, 2022 which the Magistrate Judge1 accepted as the
operative complaint. (See ECF Nos. 16, 78.) On July 8, 2022, Plaintiff moved to strike his
own claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 and the Magistrate Judge granted the motion.
(See ECF Nos. 63, 78.) Thus, only Plaintiff’s claims arising under § 1983 in the amended
complaint remain.

1

This Court referred pretrial matters to the Magistrate Judge on April 1, 2022. (ECF No. 21.)

1 

Case 2:21-cv-11939-NGE-KGA ECF No. 90, PageID.1124 Filed 09/27/22 Page 2 of 6

Plaintiff moved for the appointment of counsel on September 1, 2022. (ECF No. 82.)
That motion was conditionally granted by the Magistrate Judge and proceedings in this
matter were stayed for 60 days. (ECF No. 87.) This order resolves all of Plaintiff’s pending
motions and unaddressed objections. (ECF Nos. 52, 55, 71, 72, 79, 80, 83, 84, 86, 88.)
Defendants’ motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 33, 74) remain pending, but will not
be addressed before the stay is lifted, a new scheduling order has been issued, and Plaintiff
(or his counsel, if appointed) has been given an opportunity to respond. Defendants may
choose to withdraw their motions for summary judgment and refile once a new scheduling
order issues.
I.

August 31, 2022 Report and Recommendation
A.

Motions to Stay and Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections

On June 27, 2022, and August 8, 2022, Plaintiff moved to stay these proceedings.
(ECF Nos. 52, 72.) The Magistrate Judge addresses Plaintiff’s motions to stay in her August
31, 2022 Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 81.) She recommends Plaintiff’s motions
be denied as moot. (ECF No. 81, PageID.1063.) This Court agrees with the Magistrate
Judge’s reasoning and conclusion and further notes that a stay was put in place for 60 days
while the Court attempts to secure counsel for Plaintiff. (ECF No. 87.) Accordingly, this Court
ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation with respect
to Plaintiff’s motions to stay.
B.

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

Plaintiff moved on June 27, 2022 for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) to prevent
officials where he is currently detained, the Ionia Correctional Facility, from “using covid as
a way to limit research and development” of his case by restricting his access to the law
library. (ECF No. 55, PageID.663.) The Magistrate Judge conducted a thorough analysis in
2 

Case 2:21-cv-11939-NGE-KGA ECF No. 90, PageID.1125 Filed 09/27/22 Page 3 of 6

her Report and Recommendation and concluded that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied
because Plaintiff failed to show how he would suffer irreparable injury absent a TRO, how a
TRO would not cause substantial harm to others, and that the public interest favored
granting his motion. (ECF 81, PageID.1059-62) (analyzing under factors set forth in Ne. Ohio
Coal. for Homeless & Serv. Emps. Int'l Union, Loc. 1199 v. Blackwell, 467 F.3d 999, 1002
(6th Cir. 2006)). The Magistrate Judge also noted that none of the defendants in this case
are employed by Ionia Correctional Facility and Plaintiff did not provide authority, nor was
she aware of any authority, that allowed the Court to enter an injunction against a nondefendant. (ECF No. 81, PageID.1058.) The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s motion and the
relevant authorities and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning and conclusion.
Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation on
Defendant’s motion for TRO.
C.

Plaintiff’s Objections and Motion for Extension of Time

Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on September 15, 2022
then moved on September 20, 2022 for an extension of time to file additional objections.
(ECF Nos. 86, 88.) The Court, having conducted a de novo review of the Report and
Recommendation and Plaintiff’s objections, finds Plaintiff’s objections are without merit.
Additionally, the Court finds any objection to the Report and Recommendation would be
without merit as the Magistrate Judge correctly analyzed Plaintiff’s motion and provided a
sound conclusion. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED and his motion for an
extension of time is DENIED.

3 

Case 2:21-cv-11939-NGE-KGA ECF No. 90, PageID.1126 Filed 09/27/22 Page 4 of 6

II.

The Scheduling Order is Vacated and Plaintiff’s Rule 72(a) Objections are
Overruled
Defendants filed motions for summary judgment on June 1, 2022 and August 15,

2022 and Plaintiff was ordered by the Magistrate Judge to file a response by July 8, 2022,
and September 19, 2022, respectively. (ECF Nos. 33, 35, 74, 75.) Rather than provide a
response on the merits of Defendants’ motion, Plaintiff moved to stay this litigation (ECF No.
43) and objected to the Magistrate Judge’s orders requiring him to respond (ECF Nos. 71,
80). The Magistrate Judge has since denied Plaintiff’s motion to stay (ECF No. 61) and
Plaintiff objected to that decision. (ECF No. 71.) Given that this case is stayed while the
Court attempts to find Plaintiff pro bono counsel, the Court finds the best approach is to
vacate the deadlines associated with Defendants’ motions so that Plaintiff (or his appointed
counsel) has an opportunity to respond once the stay of this case is lifted. Accordingly, this
Court VACATES all deadlines associated with Defendants’ pending motions for summary
judgment. Plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s order requiring him to respond
(ECF Nos. 71, 80) are therefore MOOT and OVERRULED. Plaintiff’s objection to the
Magistrate Judge’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion to stay (ECF No. 71) is also
OVERRULED as this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s decision is not clearly erroneous or
contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
III.

Plaintiff’s Remaining Pending Motions
The above motions and objections having been resolved, the Court now turns to

Plaintiff’s three remaining pending motions. On August 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed a “motion for
discovery” claiming a period of discovery is necessary before Plaintiff can respond to
Defendants’ motions for summary judgment (ECF No. 79); on September 2, 2022, Plaintiff
filed a motion that stated a deadline extension to respond to Defendants’ motions for

4 

Case 2:21-cv-11939-NGE-KGA ECF No. 90, PageID.1127 Filed 09/27/22 Page 5 of 6

summary judgment was inadequate and again asked for a TRO (ECF No. 83); and on
September 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed a “motion to incorporate by reference [his] motion for
discovery . . . to relate to Defendants (sic) Motion to Dismiss Summary Judgment . . .” (ECF
No. 84).
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s pending motions. Given that the deadlines
associated with Defendants’ pending motions for summary judgment have been vacated,
and given that many of the arguments Plaintiff makes seem to be duplicative, or unclear, the
Court finds justice would be better served and judicial and party resources would be
conserved if the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s motions at ECF Nos. 79,
83, and 84. When the stay of this case is lifted, Plaintiff (or his counsel) may refile any of
these motions that have merit, are not moot, and are not duplicative of Plaintiffs’ earlier
motions.
IV.

Conclusion
For the above-stated reasons, the Court hereby ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS the

Magistrate Judge’s August 31, 2022 Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 81); Plaintiff’s
objections to the Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED (ECF No. 86); Plaintiff’s
motion for temporary restraining order (ECF No. 55) is DENIED; Plaintiff’s motions to stay
are DENIED AS MOOT (ECF Nos. 52, 72); Plaintiff’s Rule 72(a) objections are
OVERRULED (ECF Nos. 71, 80); Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file objections is
DENIED (ECF No. 88); the scheduling deadlines associated with Defendants’ pending
motions for summary judgment are VACATED; and Plaintiff’s remaining three motions are
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE (ECF Nos. 79, 83, 84).

5 

Case 2:21-cv-11939-NGE-KGA ECF No. 90, PageID.1128 Filed 09/27/22 Page 6 of 6

The parties are reminded that while this case is stayed, no motions may be filed
(although Defendants may withdraw their pending motions for summary judgment to be
refiled at a later date, if they so choose).
SO ORDERED.
__/s/ Nancy G. Edmunds______________
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Court
Dated:_____5/9/2022_______

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
on September 27, 2022, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/ Lisa Bartlett
Case Manager

6