Dykes #201541 v. Finco et al

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 and Denying 6 ; signed by District Judge Paul L. Maloney (Judge Paul L. Maloney, cmc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
ROBERT L DYKES, #204541,
Plaintiff,
-vTHOMAS FINCO, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:17-cv-209
Honorable Paul L. Maloney

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Plaintiff Robert Dykes is a prisoner under the control of the Michigan Department of
Corrections (MDOC). His lawsuit alleges violations of his constitutional rights arising from
Defendants' alleged failure in 2016 to provide Dykes with access to meals during Ramadan
that comply with his religious beliefs.
Plaintiff requested a preliminary injunction, which would require Defendants to
provide him with a complying meal during Ramadan in 2018. (ECF No. 6.) The magistrate
judge issued a report recommending the motion be denied as moot. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff
filed objections. (ECF No. 12.)
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).
Plaintiff raises three objections. The Court has reviewed de novo the issues identified
in the objections. First, whether Plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the
merits for his 2016 claim does not ultimately weigh in favor of granting the injunction for
Ramadan in 2018.

Second, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that his request is ripe.

Defendants did not appear in the lawsuit until Ramadan was nearly over or already
concluded. And, Plaintiff did not request an injunction for all future Ramadan meals.
Finally, the magistrate judge did not recommend Plaintiff's claim be dismissed as moot
because Defendants were employed at Plaintiff's current facility.
For these reasons, Plaintiff's objections are overruled. The R&R (ECF No. 11) is
ADOPTED as the Opinion of this Court. Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction
(ECF No. 6) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: August 2, 2018

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

2