Jackson #477836 et al v. Heyns et al

Filing 61

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 54 ; Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction 50 is denied ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES JACKSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-636
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
DANIEL HEYNS, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Brenneman’s Report and Recommendation in this
matter (docket # 54) and Plaintiff Richards’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation (docket
# 58). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, where, as here, a party has objected to portions
of a Report and Recommendation, “[t]he district judge . . . has a duty to reject the magistrate judge’s
recommendation unless, on de novo reconsideration, he or she finds it justified.” 12 WRIGHT,
MILLER, & MARCUS, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3070.2, at 381 (2d ed. 1997).
Specifically, the Rules provide that:
The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall make a de novo
determination upon the record, or after additional evidence, of any
portion of the magistrate judge's disposition to which specific written
objection has been made in accordance with this rule. The district
judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision,
receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate
judge with instructions.

FED R. CIV. P. 72(b). De novo review in these circumstances requires at least a review of the
evidence before the Magistrate Judge. Hill v. Duriron Co., 656 F.2d 1208, 1215 (6th Cir. 1981).

The Court has reviewed de novo the claims and evidence presented to the Magistrate Judge; the
Report and Recommendation itself; and Plaintiff's objections. After its review, the Court finds that
Magistrate Judge Brenneman’s Report and Recommendation, which recommends denial of
Plaintiff’s motion, is factually sound and legally correct.
In his Motion for Preliminary Injunction (docket # 50), Plaintiff Richards requests the Court
to order the Michigan Department of Corrections “to evacuate Units 1 and Unit 8 of Bellamy Creek
Corr. Facility due to the presence of both black mold and ecoli.” (Id.) It is undisputed that Plaintiff
Richards has been transferred to the Ionia Correctional Facility and no longer resides at the Bellamy
Creek Correctional Facility.1 The Magistrate Judge properly found that Plaintiff Richards’s claim
for injunctive relief based on conditions at the Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility is moot in light
of his transfer to the Ionia Correctional Facility and that the motion must therefore be denied. See
Berryman v. Granholm, 343 F. App’x. 1, 4-5 (6th Cir. 2009) (prisoner’s claim for injunctive and
declaratory relief mooted by his transfer to new facility); Henderson v. Martin, 73 F. App’x 115,
117 (6th Cir. 2003) (same); Kensu v. Haight, 87 F. 3d 172, 175 (6th Cir. 1996) (same).
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (docket # 54) is approved and adopted as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (docket
# 50) is DENIED.

Dated:

September 3, 2014

1

/s/ Robert J. Jonker
ROBERT J. JONKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The Court also notes that none of the other plaintiffs in this case are incarcerated at the
Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility.