Gresham #272603 v. Schiebner et al

Filing 85

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 83 re 59 , 38 , 47 , 80 , 63 , 28 , 40 , 51 : Defendants' Motions (40, 47, 63) are GRANTED; Motions (28, 38, 51, 59, 80) are DENIED AS MOOT; case closed; signed by Judge Gordon J. Quist (Judge Gordon J. Quist, jmt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL GRESHAM,
Plaintiff,
File No. 1:16-CV-394
v.
HON. GORDON J. QUIST
JAMES SCHIEBNER et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
On February 8, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Ray Kent issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that Defendants’ pending motions to dismiss (ECF Nos.
40, 47, 63) be granted, that the remaining Defendants be dismissed, and that the other motions in
this action be denied as moot. (ECF No. 83.) Before the Court are Plaintiff’s objections to the
R&R. (ECF No. 84.)
This Court is required to make a de novo review of those portions of a R&R to which
specific objections are made, and may accept, reject, or modify any or all of the Magistrate Judge’s
findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
The Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff’s complaint does not comply with the prefiling restrictions that have been placed on Plaintiff because it alleges claims that arise out of more
than one transaction or event. Plaintiff disagrees. He claims that Defendants’ actions are part of a
single campaign of harassment towards him, and that they arise out of a single transaction of
“forcibly medicating Plaintiff[,] retaliating against him[, and] not providing him with due process
at the hearings to forcibly medicate the Plaintiff against his will[.]”

(Obj., ECF No. 84,

PageID.295.) Even Plaintiff’s description of his complaint describes more than one transaction or
event. Thus, the Court agrees that Plaintiff’s complaint does not comply with the pre-filing
restrictions imposed on him. Consequently, Plaintiff’s objections will be denied and the action will
be dismissed.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 84) are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 83) is
APPROVED and ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 40, 47, 63)
are GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the outstanding motions in this action (ECF Nos. 28, 38,
51, 59, 80) are DENIED as moot.
A judgment will be entered that is consistent with this order.

Dated: March 7, 2017

/s/ Gordon J. Quist
GORDON J. QUIST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2