Peterson #318935 v. Jones
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 15 , and denying Petitioner's motion for preliminary injunction 14 ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)
Peterson #318935 v. Jones
D o c . 30
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN N O R T H E R N DIVISION
T O R A N V. PETERSON, #318935 Petitioner, C a se No. 1:10-CV-133 v. HON. ROBERT HOLMES BELL U N K N O W N JONES, R e sp o n d e n t. / O R D E R APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING PETITION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION O n June 17, 2010, Magistrate Judge Joseph G. Scoville issued a Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n ("R&R") recommending that Petitioner Toran V. Peterson's petition for a preliminary injunction be denied. (Dkt. No. 15.) This matter is before the Court on P etitio n er's objections to the R&R. (Dkt. No. 26). T h is Court makes a de novo determination of those portions of an R&R to which s p e c if ic objections are made. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court may a c c e p t, reject, or modify any or all of the Magistrate Judge's findings or recommendations. Id . The Magistrate found that none of the four factors guiding preliminary injunction d e c is io n s support Petitioner's motion. (Dkt. No. 15.) Petitioner objects, reiterating his belief that he has shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. (Dkt. No. 26.)
T h e Court finds that the Magistrate's analysis is sound. Although Petitioner raises s e v e ra l grievances, (Dkt. No. 14), it is far from clear that any of them rise to the level of an E ig h th Amendment violation. Petitioner's most serious allegation is the subject of this suit, th e alleged rough treatment by the Defendant on April 1, 2009. In his complaint, Petitioner claim s that he now suffers back pain as a result of that incident. (Dkt. No. 1). However, P lain tiff has done nothing to establish a "strong" likelihood of success of proving this claim o n the merits. Furthermore, Petitioner does not allege or offer any indication that he is at risk o f suffering another such incident in the future. None of the other grievances mentioned in h is motion for a preliminary injunction involve violence. Thus, Petitioner fails to show that h e is likely to suffer irreparable harm of a magnitude sufficient to justify the "extraordinary re m e d y" of a preliminary injunction. Petitioner also objects to the Magistrate's characterization of language in Petitioner's m o tio n as a "not-so-veiled" threat. (Dkt. No. 15 at 2.) The Court finds the Magistrate's in te rp re ta tio n of Petitioner's motion plausible, though a public policy rationale is not needed to support a denial in this case. Even accepting Petitioner's clarification, (Dkt. No. 26 at 2), th e remaining factors do not support his request for a preliminary injunction. A c c o rd in g ly, upon de novo review, I T IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's objections to the Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 26) are OVERRULED.
I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that the June 17, 2010, Report and Recommendation o f the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. N. 15) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the opinion of the C o u rt.
Dated: September 20, 2010
/s/ Robert Holmes Bell ROBERT HOLMES BELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?