Gibbs #137358 v. Laughhunn et al

Filing 72

OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 42 , Motion for Preliminary Injunction 15 is DENIED; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

PAUL D. GIBBS,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:14-cv-1101

v

HON. JANET T. NEFF

SUMMER LAUGHHUNN 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, requesting that the Court order Defendants to provide him with
medical treatment for his eyes (Dkt 15). The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued
a Report and Recommendation (R&R), recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff’s motion (Dkt
42 at 1). The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and
Recommendation (Dkt 45). Plaintiff has also filed several additional supplements and declarations
(Dkts 47-49, 52 & 54). 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 approves and adopts the
Report and Recommendation as the opinion of this Court.
Plaintiff’s objections, as supplemented, merely indicate his disagreement with the Magistrate
Judge’s conclusions on his motion for preliminary injunction. In pertinent part, his assertion that
“‘[i]mminent’ danger to [his] sight occurs every minute of everyday” due to Defendants’ alleged

refusal to provide treatment for his corneal dystrophy (Pl. Obj., Dkt 45 at 2-3) was included in his
preliminary injunction request (Dkt 15 at 2) and properly considered by the Magistrate Judge (R&R,
Dkt 42 at 2). Plaintiff’s argument fails to demonstrate any factual or legal error in the Magistrate
Judge’s analysis or conclusion. The Court therefore denies Plaintiff’s objections and adopts the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the Opinion of this Court.
Accordingly:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (Dkt 45) are DENIED and the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt 42) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion
of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt 15) is
DENIED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.

4
Dated: December ___, 2015

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

2