Gresham #272603 v. Napel et al

Filing 160

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 132 , denying plaintiff's motion to disqualify Magistrate Judge Greeley 139 , denying plaintiff's motion to recuse and/or reassign Magistrate Judge Greeley 149 , denying plaintiff&# 039;s motion for injunctive relief 125 , denying plaintiff's motion for judicial misconduct investigation 145 , denying plaintiff's motion to re-screen the case 122 , denying plaintiff's motion to serve defendants with the amended complaint 143 ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)

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

MICHAEL GRESHAM,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:14-cv-253
v.
HON. ROBERT HOLMES BELL
ROBERT NAPEL, et al.
Defendants.
/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of the Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendments. On July 27, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge Timothy
P. Greeley issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that Plaintiff’s
“motion for a temporary restraining order, [R]ule 65 preliminary and permanent injunction
to cease harassing and retaliatory excess legal property hearing send legal mail out so
Gresham can litigate his false imprisonment claims and cease and desist clandestine
retaliatory tactics aimed to deter and deprive litigation” (ECF No. 125) and Plaintiff’s
“motion for relief from judgment Rule 60(b)(1)(2)(2)(6) August 20, 2015, order for the court
to rescreen amend complaint and properly serve Defendants Pamela Austin or consolidate
case and make this issue moot” (ECF No. 122) be denied. (ECF No. 132.) The matter is
before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R (ECF Nos. 139, 143), Plaintiff’s motion

for judicial misconduct investigation (ECF No. 145), and Plaintiff’s motion to recuse and/or
reassign Magistrate Greeley (ECF No. 149).
This Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the R&R
to which specific objection has been 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). “[A] general objection to a magistrate’s report, which fails to specify the issues of
contention, does not satisfy the requirement that an objection be filed. The objections must
be clear enough to enable the district court to discern those issues that are dispositive and
contentious.” Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995).
Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Plaintiff failed to establish
a likelihood of success on the merits and failed to show that he will suffer irreparable harm
if the requested relief is not granted. Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge’s bias and
deep-seated favoritism impaired his perception of the case. Plaintiff claims that his amended
complaint and previous objection “not only support[] multiple defendants have conspired to
violate and did violate his federal rights but that Magistrate Greeley was and is apart of this
systematic conspiracy against the plaintiff.” (ECF No. 139, PageID.892.) The Court takes
this objection as a motion to disqualify Judge Greeley. The R&R accurately recites the facts
and correctly applies pertinent law. The Court finds the R&R to be well-reasoned, and
Plaintiff’s requests for injunctive relief are without merit. Plaintiff’s claims as to Judge
Greeley’s bias and favoritism are unsupported, and his motion to disqualify Judge Greeley
is meritless.
2

Plaintiff also requested the Court to re-screen his case because there are other
Defendants who should be served a summons and complaint. This Court has already issued
an order denying Plaintiff’s request to add parties to the complaint and has dismissed several
Defendants for misjoinder. Thus, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request to re-screen his case.
For the reasons explained by the R&R, the Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation to deny Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 125) and Plaintiff’s
motion to re-screen this case (ECF No. 122).
In addition, Plaintiff filed a “motion for judicial misconduct investigation” (ECF No.
145) and a “motion to recuse and/or reassign Magistrate Greeley” (ECF No. 149). In his
motions, Plaintiff asserts that Judge Greeley filed a “false and very inaccurate R&R” relating
to Defendants’ motions for misjoinder. This Court conducted a de novo review of that R&R,
and approved and adopted it. There was no judicial misconduct, and there are no reasons to
reassign or recuse Judge Greeley. Thus, Plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos. 145, 149) are without
merit.
Further, the Court considers Plaintiff’s objections filed in response to the R&R (ECF
No. 143) and Plaintiff’s supplement (ECF No. 144) as a motion to serve Defendants with the
amended complaint. Plaintiff requests that over eighty people, none of whom are Defendants
in the case, be served with the amended complaint. Plaintiff has not shown that these parties
may be properly joined to his claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 20 (requiring that claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence or transactions
3

or occurrences to be properly joined). Thus, his motion is denied. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R (ECF Nos. 139
and 143) are OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the July 27, 2016 R&R (ECF No. 132) is
APPROVED and ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (ECF No.
125) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to re-screen the case (ECF No.
122) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to serve Defendants with the
amended complaint (ECF No. 143) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify Judge Greeley
(ECF No. 139) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for judicial misconduct
investigation (ECF No. 145) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to recuse and/or reassign
Magistrate Greeley (ECF No. 149) is DENIED.

Dated: October 12, 2016

/s/ Robert Holmes Bell
ROBERT HOLMES BELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4