Brown #215918 v. Prelesnik et al

Filing 123

OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 104 ; Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and/or Protection Order 79 is DENIED; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAVID BROWN,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:12-cv-873

v

HON. JANET T. NEFF

JOHN PRELESNIK, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER
This is a prisoner civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed a
“Motion for Preliminary Injunction and/or Protection Order” (Dkt 79), requesting that the Court
enter an order directing that he be transferred to a different correctional facility capable of
accommodating his vision limitations, as Plaintiff allegedly suffers from a degenerative eye
impairment.

The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) (Dkt 104), recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff’s motion. The
matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation
(Dkt 108). 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.
Noting that injunctive relief is an “extraordinary remedy,” the Magistrate Judge determined
that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the balance of applicable factors warranted injunctive relief.
Specifically, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he is likely to

prevail on the merits of any of his remaining claims (R&R, Dkt 104 at 3). The Magistrate Judge
further found Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he would suffer irreparable injury absent an
injunction and that the public interest would not be served by judicial interference in the day-to-day
operations of a correctional facility absent evidence supporting such (id.).
Plaintiff first objects to the Magistrate Judge’s characterization of his condition as “partial
blindness,” arguing that the characterization implies that “Plaintiff can, in fact see . . . which
minimizes the need for accommodations . . . .” (Objs., Dkt 108 at 1). However, the Magistrate Judge
did not base her recommendation on the severity of Plaintiff’s condition but on Defendants’ evidence
demonstrating that Defendants are accommodating Plaintiff’s condition and that Defendants, upon
request, could further accommodate Plaintiff (R&R, Dkt 104 at 3). The Magistrate Judge also
pointedly observed that Plaintiff failed to submit “any evidence refuting that submitted by
Defendants” (id.). Plaintiff’s objection does not demonstrate that a disposition other than the
recommendation by the Magistrate Judge is warranted.
Plaintiff’s second objection reiterates, verbatim, his fourteen-page reply to Defendants’
opposition to his motion for a preliminary injunction (Objs., Dkt 108 at 3-15; Reply, Dkt 88 at 1-14).
Plaintiff emphasizes that his “verified allegations and rational arguments” contained in that
document are in “sharp conflict” with the Magistrate Judge’s findings (Objs., Dkt 108 at 3).
However, Plaintiff’s objection does not demonstrate any factual or legal error in the Magistrate
Judge’s analysis, only his dissatisfaction with, and general objection to, the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation. Accordingly, the Court also denies Plaintiff’s second objection.

2

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objections (Dkt 108) are DENIED, and
the Report and Recommendation (Dkt 104) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the
Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and/or
Protection Order (Dkt 79) is DENIED.

Dated: March ___, 2015
16

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

3