Brown v. Voorhies et al
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation re 65 ; overruling the objections; denying motions for a TRO & to supplement the motion for TRO. Signed by Judge Sandra S Beckwith on 11/30/09. (mb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION Steven S. Brown, Plaintiff, vs. Warden Voorhies, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) Case No. 1:07-CV-463 ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Hogan's Report and Recommendation of September 10, 2009 (Doc. No. 65) and Plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 76). In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate
Judge Hogan recommended that Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 36) and motion to supplement the motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 41) be denied. For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendation are not well-taken; therefore, the objections are OVERRULED. Report and Recommendation. The Court ADOPTS the
Plaintiff's motion for a temporary
restraining order and motion to supplement are not well-taken and are DENIED. Plaintiff is a state prisoner now incarcerated at Southern Ohio Correctional Facility. The complaint he has filed
in this case asserts a variety of claims for constitutional violations, among them deliberate indifference to his serious
Plaintiff's pleadings continue to present a
moving target for the Court and the Magistrate Judge to contend with. Plaintiff's initial motion for injunctive relief and the
supplement allege a number of past actions by corrections officers that allegedly violated his constitutional rights. instance, Plaintiff claims that he was beaten by corrections officers and that they ate his kosher food. Additionally, the For
motion alleges that it takes too long to be transported to the hospital so he can receive necessary medical tests. In his
Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Hogan correctly determined that a temporary restraining order is not the proper mechanism for remedying past violations yet to be proven. Procter & Gamble Co. v. Bankers Trust Co., 78 F.3d 219, 226 (6th Cir. 1996) (stating that "the purpose of a TRO under Rule 65 is to preserve the status quo so that a reasoned resolution of a dispute may be had."). Moreover, the Court addressed the issue
of Plaintiff's medical tests in a prior order and concluded he was not likely to succeed on the merits of that claim. 63. Plaintiff's objections, instead of addressing any alleged errors in the Report and Recommendation, simply add a new laundry list of constitutional violations allegedly perpetrated against him by unidentified corrections officers. The Court, Mira v. Doc. No.
therefore, need not consider Plaintiff's objections. 2
Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) ("The parties have the duty to pinpoint those portions of the magistrate's report that the district court must specially consider."). Conclusion For the reasons stated, Plaintiff's objections to Magistrate Judge Hogan's Report and Recommendation are not welltaken and are OVERRULED. Recommendation. The Court ADOPTS the Report and
Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining
order and motion to supplement the motion for a temporary restraining order are not well-taken and are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED Date November 30, 2009 s/Sandra S. Beckwith Sandra S. Beckwith Senior United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?