Sedore v. Washington et al

Filing 105

ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 92 ), Denying Plaintiff's Motions for Preliminary Injunction (ECF Nos. 66 , 68 ), and Denying as Moot Defendant's Motion Requesting An Immediate Response/Decision (ECF No. 97 ) - Signed by District Judge Jonathan J.C. Grey. (SOso)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SCOTT SEDORE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 23-10647
Hon. Jonathan J.C. Grey
Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris

HEIDI WASHINGTON, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
(ECF No. 92), DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (ECF Nos. 66, 68), AND
DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S MOTION REQUESTING
AN IMMEDIATE RESPONSE/DECISION (ECF No. 97)
Pro se plaintiff Scott Sedore filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit
against defendants, alleging that they violated his constitutional rights
because Michigan Department of Corrections’ policy prohibits inmates
from purchasing fans that have more than two speeds and that are larger
than six inches in diameter. (ECF No. 1, PageID.11, 15.) This matter
comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris’s Report
and Recommendation dated June 10, 2024. (ECF No. 92.) In the Report
and Recommendation, Judge Morris recommends that the Court deny
Sedore’s motions for preliminary injunction (ECF Nos. 66, 68). (ECF No.

92.) No party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation.
The Court has had an opportunity to review this matter and finds
that the Magistrate Judge reached the correct conclusions for the proper
reasons. Finding no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in
its entirety. Furthermore, as neither party has raised an objection to the
Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that the parties have
waived any further objections to the Report and Recommendation. Smith
v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987)
(a party’s failure to file any objections waives his or her right to further
appeal); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
For the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED that the Report
and Recommendation dated June 10, 2024 (ECF No. 92) is ADOPTED
as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Sedore’s motions for
preliminary injunction (ECF Nos. 66, 68) are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Sedore’s motion requesting an
immediate response/decision regarding his preliminary injunction
motions (ECF No. 97) is DENIED AS MOOT because: (a) Sedore
2

prepared and mailed that motion after the Report and Recommendation
had been issued, but (b) during the time the Report and Recommendation
was in the mail from the Court to him.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 28, 2024

s/Jonathan J.C. Grey
JONATHAN J.C. GREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Certificate of Service
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon
counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF
System to their respective email or First-Class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on August 28, 2024.
s/ S. Osorio
Sandra Osorio
Case Manager

3