Jackson #282320 v. Hogle et al

Filing 64

OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 34 , Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 4 is DENIED; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

CURTIS O. JACKSON,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:13-cv-475

v

HON. JANET T. NEFF

F. HOGLE, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order against Defendants Hogle, Huss,
and Nevins (Dkt 4), which was referred to the Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge issued a
Report and Recommendation (R&R), recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order against Defendants. 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 objects to the Magistrate Judge’s analysis of his motion, arguing that he suffered
irreparable injury when Defendants Hogle and Nevins precluded Plaintiff from participating in video
conferences in two other cases (Objs., Dkt 36 at 2-3). Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that “his cell
has been searched at least twice a day with correctional officers confiscating his legal documents

1

for the benefit of defendants Hogle and Nevins” (id. at 4). Last, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
have threatened to “do physical harm to Plaintiff” (id.).
Plaintiff’s objections fail to demonstrate that a result other than the denial recommended by
the Magistrate Judge is warranted. The Magistrate Judge correctly analyzed Plaintiff’s Motion for
a Temporary Restraining Order and fully considered his allegations. The Court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff fails to establish that he is likely to prevail in this matter, that he
would suffer irreparable injury absent injunctive relief, or that public interest would be served by
judicial interference in the operations of the correctional facility in this case (R&R, Dkt 34 at 2).
Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the Opinion
of this Court. Therefore:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (Dkt 36) are DENIED and the Report and
Recommendation (Dkt 34) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt
4) is DENIED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.

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

Dated: February ___, 2014
18

2