Peterson #318935 v. Jones

Filing 30

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.)

Dockets.Justia.com

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.

2

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

3