Rose #235893 v. Washington et al

Filing 304

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 263 re 223 : Plaintiff's untitled motion 223 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

WILLIE ROSE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:16-CV-242

JOSEPH DAMRON, et al.,

HON. GORDON J. QUIST

Defendants.
_____________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On April 23, 2018, state prisoner Willie Rose submitted a letter which the Clerk’s office
docketed as a motion to transfer to a new prison facility and/or a motion for a temporary restraining
order. (ECF No. 223.) On July 24, 2018, Magistrate Judge Timothy Greeley issued a Report and
Recommendation (R & R), recommending that the Court deny Rose’s motion. (ECF No. 263.)
On August 10, 2018, Rose filed an objection to the R & R. (ECF No. 275.)
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), a party “may serve and file specific written
objections” to the R & R, and the Court is to consider any proper objection. Local Rule 72.3(b)
likewise requires that written objections “shall specifically identify the portions” of the R & R to
which a party objects. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), upon receiving objections to a report and
recommendation, the district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the
report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” After
conducting a de novo review of the R & R, Rose’s objections and the pertinent portions of the
record, the Court concludes that the R & R should be adopted.

The R & R recommended denying Rose’s motion because: Rose’s request for injunctive
relief is unrelated to the claims in his complaint; Rose failed to show that he will be irreparably
harmed; the interference by federal courts in state prison matters is disruptive; and Rose failed to
meet the requisite “heavy burden” justifying relief. Rose’s objections do not cure these failings.
Rose asserts that there is “a hit being sought against him,” that he was given unsanitary utensils to
cut his big-toe nail, and prison officials are tampering with legal mail.

(ECF No. 275 at

PageID.3006.) Rose included an affidavit that expands upon these assertions. (ECF No. 275-1.)
Rose’s unsupported assertions do not get him over the legal hurdles discussed in the R & R.
Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
(ECF No. 263) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the Opinion of this Court; Plaintiff’s
Objections (ECF No. 275) are OVERRULED; and Plaintiff’s untitled motion (ECF No. 223) is
DENIED.

Dated: September 7, 2018

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

2