Dunbar v. Heyns et al

Filing 141

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 137 and 138 ; Denying 118 ; Granting 116 ; signed by District Judge Paul L. Maloney (Judge Paul L. Maloney, cmc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOSEPH DUNBAR, #129278,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
-vBRADLEY ROZEN, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 1:18-cv-617
Honorable Paul L. Maloney

ORDER ADOPTING REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In this civil rights complaint filed by a prisoner under the control of the Michigan
Department of Corrections, Defendants Rozen and Woldhuis filed a motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 116) and Plaintiff Dunbar filed a motion for a preliminary injunction
(ECF No. 118). The magistrate judge issued two reports and recommendations. First, the
magistrate judge recommends denying Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. (ECF
No. 137.) Second, the magistrate judge recommends granting Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment. (ECF No. 138.) Plaintiff filed one document containing objections to
both reports. (ECF No. 140.)
A.
After being served with a report and recommendation (R&R) issued by a magistrate
judge, a party has fourteen days to file written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A district court judge
reviews de novo the portions of the R&R to which objections have been filed. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Only those objections that are specific are entitled to a

de novo review under the statute. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (per
curiam).
B. ECF No. 137 - Preliminary Injunction R&R
The magistrate judge found that Plaintiff did not sufficiently support the factual
allegations (threats of some injury) with any specific or concrete evidence. Plaintiff’s
objection is, at best, perfunctory. Plaintiff merely disagrees with the magistrate judge and
does not identify any specific or concrete evidence to support his claim for an injury. The
objection is OVERRULED.
C. ECF No. 138 - Motion for Summary Judgment R&R
The magistrate judge found that that Plaintiff did not sufficiently support a claim for
retaliation or the Eighth Amendment. On the other hand, Defendants had evidence
indicating that they did not retaliate or violate the Eighth Amendment. Rather that objecting
to any specific finding of fact or conclusion of law, Plaintiff raises concerns about claims not
discussed in this report and recommendation. The other claims have been resolved against
Plaintiff through other orders and they are not properly raised through objections to the
factual findings here. The objection is OVERRULED.

2

D.
Accordingly, the Reports and Recommendations (ECF Nos. 137 and 138) are
ADOPTED as the Opinions of this Court. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction
(ECF No. 118) is DENIED. Defendants’ motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No.
116) is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: October 22, 2019

/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge

3