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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?