Annabel #414234 v. Caruso et al

Filing 111

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 97 , Plaintiff's third motion 89 for preliminary injunction is DENIED; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT WAYNE ANNABEL II
#414234,
Case No. 1:09-cv-176
Plaintiff,
HON. JANET T. NEFF
v
PATRICIA CARUSO, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER
This is a prisoner civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 involving Defendants’
alleged violations of Plaintiff’s religious rights under the First Amendment and the Religious Land
Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), and his right of access to the courts (R & R, Dkt
97 at 1). On February 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed a “Third Motion for Preliminary Injunction,”
requesting that the Court order Defendants to provide him with “a religious diet of grape juice and
unleavened bread . . . ” from April 17 to April 25, 2011 (Pl. Mot., Dkt 89 at 1). The matter was
referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R & R), recommending
that this Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion (R & R, Dkt 97).
The matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation
(Pl. Obj., Dkt 101). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3), the
Court has performed de novo consideration of those portions of the Report and Recommendation

1

to which objections have been made. The Court denies the objections and issues this Opinion and
Order.
The Court first notes that the dates listed in Plaintiff’s Third Motion for Preliminary
Injunction, April 17 through April 25, have now passed (Pl. Mot., Dkt 89 at 1). The Court also notes
that Plaintiff’s Objections changed the dates for the requested relief to May 17 through May 25 (Pl.
Obj., Dkt 101 at 2). Plaintiff’s Objections provide no explanation or basis for changing the dates
of the relief sought. Plaintiff’s Motion and his Objections are moot, since even the new dates of
relief have now passed.
Even if Plaintiff’s Objections were not moot, the Court finds them without merit. Plaintiff’s
Objections offer little more than conclusory challenges. Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s
determinations that Plaintiff (1) provided no evidence to support injunctive relief, (2) failed to show
that he is likely to prevail, and (3) failed to show that he will suffer irreparable harm. The
Magistrate Judge properly considered the factors to be balanced by the court in deciding whether
to grant injunctive relief. See Samuel v. Herrick Mem’l Hosp., 201 F.3d 830, 833 (6th Cir. 2000).
The Magistrate Judge did not find that Plaintiff had failed to offer evidence showing
violations of Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights, but instead found that Plaintiff failed to offer
evidence showing that a preliminary injunction was warranted (R & R, Dkt 97 at 2). Upon
consideration of the relevant factors and Plaintiff’s Objections, the Court finds no error in the
Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that injunctive relief is unwarranted based on the minimal showing
made. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the
Opinion of this Court. Because this action was filed in forma pauperis, this Court certifies, pursuant

2

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. See
McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610 (6th Cir. 1997).
Therefore:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (Dkt 101) are DENIED and the Report and
Recommendation (Dkt 97) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Third Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt
89) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that
an appeal of this Opinion and Order would not be taken in good faith.

Dated: June 14, 2011

/s/ Janet T. Neff
JANET T. NEFF
United States District Judge