Gallant v. Cadogan et al

Filing 34

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation re 24 Report and Recommendation denying 4 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 12/30/16. (ba)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Jeremy P. Gallant,
Plaintiff,
Case No.: 1:16-cv-00487
v.
Judge Michael R. Barrett
Anthony Cadogan, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s August 16, 2016
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction be denied. (Doc. 24).
The parties were given proper notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
72(b), including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file
objections to the R&R in a timely manner. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947,
949-950 (6th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff filed Objections to the R&R. (Doc. 26). Defendants
filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Objections. (Doc. 27).
For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s Preliminary Injunction is DENIED; and
the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s August 16, 2016 R&R.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is an inmate currently incarcerated at the Southern Ohio Correctional
Facility (“SOCF”). Plaintiff brings his claims pro se under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against
numerous SOCF employees and “other unidentified state officials” alleging that
Defendants violated his First and Eight Amendment rights. (Doc. 5). Plaintiff requests

“Monetary-Injunction Relief” based on four separate causes of action. (Doc. 5). First,
Plaintiff maintains that Dr. Faisal Ahmed failed to treat a broken bone and infection in
Plaintiff’s right hand and claims that Dr. Faisal Ahmed and unknown “John/Jane Doe”
defendants assaulted Plaintiff during a medical examination on March 9, 2015. (Doc.
5). Second, Plaintiff alleges that “John/Jane Doe” defendants retaliated against Plaintiff
and exposed Plaintiff to a harmful chemical substance on July 2, 2015. (Doc. 5). Third,
Plaintiff asserts that “John/Jane Doe” failed to treat Plaintiff after the July incident. (Doc.
5). Last, Plaintiff brings action against defendants Mr. Cool, Lieutenant Frazie, Captain
Whitman, Mr. Mead, Mr. Satterfield, and “other unidentified state officials” for “U.S. mail
tampering and obstructions.” (Doc. 5).
The Magistrate Judge has set forth the remaining procedural and factual
background in her R&R and the same will not be repeated here except to the extent
necessary to address Plaintiff’s objections.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review
This Court shall consider objections to a magistrate judge's order on a
nondispositive matter and “shall modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate
judge's order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a).
When objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are received on a
dispositive matter, the assigned district judge “must determine de novo any part of the
magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3).

After review, the district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the

2

recommended decision; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate
judge with instructions.” Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a) permits a party to seek a preliminary
injunction when the party believes it will suffer irreparable harm absent judiciary
intervention. Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a). The following factors are considered in determining
whether to issue a preliminary injunction: (1) whether the movant has a strong likelihood
of success on the merits; (2) whether the movant would suffer irreparable injury absent
an injunction; (3) whether granting the injunction will cause substantial harm to others;
and (4) whether the public interest is served by issuing the injunction. Northeast Ohio
Coalition for the Homeless v. Blackwell, 467 F.3d 999, 1009 (6th Cir. 2008). Preliminary
injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted only if the movant
carries the burden of proving that the circumstances clearly demand it. See Overstreet
v. Lexington–Fayette Urban County Gov't, 305 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2002). The proof
required for the plaintiff to obtain a preliminary injunction is much more stringent than
the proof required to survive a summary judgment motion. Leary v. Daeschner, 228
F.3d 729, 739 (6th Cir. 2000).
B. Preliminary Injunctive Relief
Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate’s recommendation to deny the preliminary
injunction and requests that the court stay the proceedings “until Plaintiff has had a
chance to obtain materials to prevail on merits of case.” (Doc. 26, 1). However, a stay
is unnecessary because preliminary injunctive relief is unwarranted. First, as the
Magistrate Judge pointed out, Plaintiff has made no attempt to apply the legal standard
to determine whether a preliminary injunction is appropriate. (Doc. 24, 3). The

3

Magistrate’s application of the balancing test correctly found that the factors weigh
against granting the preliminary injunction. (Doc. 24, 3).
Second, as the Magistrate made known, preliminary injunctive relief would not
serve Plaintiff’s interests. Plaintiff’s request for “Monetary-Injunction Relief” appears to
confuse retroactive monetary relief with prospective injunctive relief. “Retroactive relief
compensates the plaintiff for a past violation of his legal rights. . . [and] usually takes the
form of money damages.” Doe v. Wigginton, 21 F.3d 733, 736-37. Conversely, the
purpose of prospective injunctive relief “is merely to preserve the relative positions of
the parties until a trial on the merits can be held.” Southern Milk Sales, Inc. v. Martin,
924 F.2d 98, 102 (6th Cir. 1991) (quoting University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S.
390, 395 (1981) (internal quotation marks omitted).

According to Plaintiff, he has

suffered numerous violations of his constitutional rights.

Plaintiff does not wish to

preserve this situation until trial. 1 Therefore, prospective injunctive relief is improper.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, that Magistrate Judge’s August 16, 2016 R&R (Doc. 24)
is ADOPTED.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a

preliminary injunction be DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Michael R. Barrett
JUDGE MICHAEL R. BARRETT

1

Plaintiff’s four causes of actions seek compensation for defendants’ past actions that occurred in 2014
and 2015. The only ongoing unlawful conduct Plaintiff alleged is that defendants continue to obstruct and
tamper with his mail. (Doc. 24, 20).

4