Bowman v. Wayne County Sheriff et al

Filing 168

ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation 154 and Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction 152 . Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ANTOINE E. BOWMAN,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 24-10188
v.
Hon. George Caram Steeh
Hon. Patricia T. Morris

WAYNE COUNTY SHERIFF,
et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
(ECF NO. 154) AND DENYING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (ECF NO. 152)
Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris issued a report and
recommendation on March 20, 2024, proposing that Plaintiff’s motion for
preliminary injunction be denied. Plaintiff filed an objection.
With respect to reports and recommendations from magistrate
judges, this court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of
the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The court “may accept, reject
or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate.” Id.

-1-

In a letter to the court, which the magistrate judge construed as a
motion, Plaintiff expressed his concern that Wayne County officials may
physically harm him in retaliation for filing this lawsuit. Plaintiff was
scheduled to return to the Wayne County Jail while awaiting sentencing in
state court. As it happened, Plaintiff did not return to the Wayne County Jail
for sentencing, but he appeared by video conference.
Although Plaintiff submitted a generalized objection to the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation, he does not persuasively address the
magistrate judge’s reasons for denying injunctive relief. The magistrate
judge concluded that Plaintiff’s request was unrelated to the claims in his
complaint and that Plaintiff did not establish a substantial risk of harm
sufficient to confer standing to seek injunctive relief. The court agrees that
Plaintiff neither set forth a retaliation claim in his complaint nor a credible
threat of retaliation if he were to return to the Wayne County Jail. Moreover,
Plaintiff was not transferred to the Wayne County Jail for sentencing, and
he has not alleged that there are plans to transfer him in the future.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is moot. See Cardinal v. Metrish, 564 F.3d 794,
798–99 (6th Cir. 2009) (holding prisoner’s claims for declaratory and

-2-

injunctive relief were rendered moot by his transfer to a different facility);
Kensu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d 172, 175 (6th Cir.1996) (same).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 159)
are OVERRULED, Magistrate Judge Morris’s report and recommendation
(ECF No. 154) is ADOPTED, and Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction
(ECF No. 152) is DENIED.
Dated: May 21, 2024
s/George Caram Steeh
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record
on May 21, 2024, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and
also on Antoine Bowman #697842, Macomb Correctional
Facility, 34625 26 Mile Road, New Haven, MI 48048.
s/LaShawn Saulsberry
Deputy Clerk

-3-