Courtemanche #204238 v. Czop et al
Filing
56
OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 15 , Motion for Preliminary Injunction 12 is DENIED; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RICHARD COURTEMANCHE,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:12-cv-841
v
HON. JANET T. NEFF
RICHARD CZOP, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a prisoner civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 10,
2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction, requesting that this Court enjoin the
Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) from transferring Plaintiff to a lower security facility
(Dkt 12).
The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and
Recommendation (R&R), recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff’s motion. The matter is
presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation. 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 to which objections have
been made. The Court denies the objections and issues this Opinion and Order.
Plaintiff raises three objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
First, Plaintiff claims that the Magistrate Judge erred in stating that he must establish a likelihood
of success on the merits (Objs., Dkt 19 at 1). However, the Magistrate Judge did not misstate this
first factor of the applicable four-factor analysis (R&R, Dkt 15 at 2, citing Samuel v. Herrick Mem’l
Hosp., 201 F.3d 830, 833 (6th Cir. 2000)). Therefore, this objection is denied.
Second, Plaintiff emphasizes that “[h]is transfer has resulted in significant harm,” and he
delineates examples of the resulting harm he perceives, such as the loss of his employment (Dkt 19
at 1). This objection is also denied. While Plaintiff may disagree with the manner in which the
Magistrate Judge weighed the second factor for injunctive relief—“whether the movant would suffer
irreparable injury if the court does not grant the injunction,” Plaintiff has not demonstrated any legal
or factual error by the Magistrate Judge. Rather, the Magistrate Judge properly determined that any
inconvenience to Plaintiff would not significantly impair or prejudice his ability to prosecute his
claims and therefore “is not a proper basis for granting the relief sought” (R&R, Dkt 15 at 2-3). See,
e.g., Henry v. City of Eastpointe Police Dep’t, No. 2:11-cv-10192, 2012 WL 3151566, at *2 (E.D.
Mich. July 13, 2012) (Report & Recommendation) (“The mere fact that plaintiff’s transfer may
make it harder for him to prosecute this litigation is not the type of irreparable harm justifying the
issuance of a preliminary injunction”), adopted by 2012 WL 3149103 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 2, 2012).
Last, Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s analysis of the public interest factor,
specifically, the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the public interest would not be served by
judicial interference in the day-to-day operations of a correctional facility (Objs., Dkt 19 at 2).
According to Plaintiff, his transfer is not a “day-to-day operation” but retaliation for his filing of this
lawsuit (id.). This objection is also without merit. The decision to transfer prisoners is part of the
MDOC’s daily operations, as evidenced by Plaintiff’s attachment of MDOC policies governing
transfers, and the Magistrate Judge did not err in the weight she assigned to this factor in her
analysis. See generally Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 562 (1979) (explaining that “the inquiry of
2
federal courts into prison management must be limited to the issue of whether a particular system
violates any prohibition of the Constitution or, in the case of a federal prison, a statute”).
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 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), overruled on other grounds by
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 206, 211-12 (2007). Therefore:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (Dkt 19) are DENIED and the Report and
Recommendation (Dkt 15) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt 12) is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that
an appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith.
29
Dated: April ___, 2013
/s/ Janet T. Neff
JANET T. NEFF
United States District Judge
3
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?