Henry #674132 v. Bergeron et al

Filing 133

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 111 re 83 ; Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief 83 is DENIED; signed by Judge Gordon J. Quist (Judge Gordon J. Quist, jmt)

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

XAVIER HENRY,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:15-CV-197

v.
HON. GORDON J. QUIST
UNKNOWN BERGERON, et al.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On February 23, 2017, Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley issued a Report and
Recommendation (R & R) recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary
restraining order and a preliminary injunction. The magistrate judge recommended denying the
motion because the Court previously dismissed Plaintiff’s First Amendment, RLUIPA, and
conspiracy claims and Plaintiff failed to show a strong or substantial likelihood of success on the
merits of his remaining claim. The magistrate judge also recommended denial in light of the
deference federal courts accord state officials on matters of prisoner administration.
Plaintiff has filed an Objection to the R & R, arguing that he has demonstrated that the
preliminary injunction factors weigh in favor of the injunctive relief Plaintiff requests.
After conducting a de novo review of the R & R, Plaintiff’s Objection, and the pertinent
portions of the record, the Court concludes that the R & R should be adopted and Plaintiff’s motion
for injunctive relief should be denied.
Following the issuance of the R & R, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration
of the dismissal of Plaintiff’s First Amendment, RLUIPA, and conspiracy claims, leaving his Eighth

Amendment claim against Defendants Bergeron, Johnson, and Rosebrock as the only remaining
claim in the case. In this Court’s judgment, Plaintiff has not demonstrated likelihood of success on
the merits of his Eighth Amendment claim. Moreover, the relief Plaintiff seeks pertains to his
dismissed claims. Finally, because the injunctive relief Plaintiff seeks actually challenges an MDOC
policy, the proper defendant for such relief appears to the director of the MDOC, who was not a
party to this case. See Hardaway v. Haggerty, No. 05-70362, 2010 WL 1131446, at *5 (E.D. Mich.
Mar. 22, 2010) (noting that the proper defendant in a claim challenging an MDOC policy and
seeking injunctive relief is the director of the MDOC).
Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
issued February 23, 2017 (ECF No. 111) is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court. Plaintiff’s
Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 83) is DENIED.

Dated: June 7, 2017

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

2