Haggins v. MN Commissioner of Corrections et al

Filing 86

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. 1. Plaintiff Dejuan Haywood Haggins's objections (Doc. No. 60 ) to Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois's July 5, 2011 Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED. 2. Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois' s July 5, 2011 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 58 ) is ADOPTED. 3. Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 55 ) are DENIED.(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 9/27/2011. (BJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Dejuan Haywood Haggins,

Civil No. 10-1002 (DWF/LIB)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

MN Commissioner of Corrections,
John King, Michelle Smith, Greg
Lindell, Jessica Symmes, Mary
McCombs, Peter Puffer, Terry
Jorgeson, Kent Grandlienard, and
Tom Sholes,
Defendants.

Dejuan Haywood Haggins, Pro Se, Plaintiff.
Jackson Evans, Assistant Attorney General, Minnesota Attorney General’s Office,
counsel for Defendants.

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Dejuan Haywood Haggins’s
objections (Doc. No. 60) to Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois’s July 5, 2011 Report and
Recommendation (Doc. No. 58) insofar as it recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary Injunction be denied.
Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff’s objections on August 2, 2011. (Doc. No. 84.)
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record, including a review of the
arguments and submissions of the parties, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local

Rule 72.2(b). The factual background for the above-entitled matter is clearly and
precisely set forth in the Report and Recommendation and is incorporated by reference
for purposes of Plaintiff’s objections.
The Court has carefully reviewed the record and concludes that Plaintiff’s
objections offer neither law nor fact requiring departure from the Report and
Recommendation. Plaintiff argues that his disciplinary segregation amounts to an
atypical hardship. He further objects to Magistrate Judge Brisbois’s conclusions with
respect to each of the four Dataphase factors. Dataphase Systems v. CL Systems, 640
F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981). As explained by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff has failed to
demonstrate that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims, that he has suffered
irreparable harm, or that the public interest or the balance of harms weigh in favor of
granting his request for injunctive relief. See id. Consequently, Plaintiff’s motions are
properly denied.
Based upon the de novo review of the record and all of the arguments and
submissions of the parties, and the Court being otherwise duly advised in the premises,
the Court hereby enters the following:
ORDER
1.

Plaintiff Dejuan Haywood Haggins’s objections (Doc. No. [60]) to

Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois’s July 5, 2011 Report and Recommendation are
OVERRULED.

2

2.

Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois’s July 5, 2011 Report and

Recommendation (Doc. No. [58]) is ADOPTED.
3.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for

Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. [55]) are DENIED.
Dated: September 27, 2011

s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge

3