Thompson v. Erdos et al

Filing 41

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 39 Plaintiff's Motion for Injunction Relief. For the reasons previously set forth in the prior R&Rs, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT Plaintiff's latest motion for injunctive relief 39 be DENIED, without awaiting a response from the Defendants, and alternatively, stricken from the record. Objections to R&R due by 9/19/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 9/5/2017. (km)(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
GERALD THOMPSON,
Case No. 1:16-cv-812
Plaintiff,
Dlott, J.
Bowman, M.J.
v.
WARDEN ERDOS, et al.,
Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, an incarcerated individual who proceeds pro se, tendered a new
complaint against multiple defendants on August 4, 2016. 1 After Plaintiff corrected
several procedural deficiencies, the undersigned entered an Order that granted
Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis against some of the identified
Defendants, while recommending dismissal of many of Plaintiff’s claims and
defendants.
On August 1, 2017, the undersigned filed a Report and Recommendation that
detailed the history of the above-captioned case, including Plaintiff’s extensive and
repetitive motion practice, which includes multiple motions for preliminary injunctive
relief and/or temporary restraining orders. (Doc. 38). Plaintiff has filed objections to the
August 1 R&R, which objections remain pending before the presiding district judge. The
undersigned incorporates the background and analysis of her August 1, 2017 R&R, and

1

In the last R&R filed in this case, the Court took judicial notice of the fact that Plaintiff had filed two prior
civil rights cases concerning his conditions of confinement: Civil Case 1:14-cv-935, and Case No. 1:15cv-553, as well as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which was transferred to the Northern District of
Ohio, Case No. 1:16-cv-409. On May 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed yet another case in this Court: see Case No.
2:17-cv-461-GCS-EPD.

further incorporates, as if fully restated, an earlier R&R filed on January 18, 2017 (Doc.
19). Plaintiff has been warned in other matters not to re-file previously filed motions that
have been ruled upon by the Court. Future repetitive motions will be stricken without
further comment.
For the reasons previously set forth in the prior R&Rs, accordingly, IT IS
RECOMMENDED THAT Plaintiff’s latest motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 39) be
DENIED, without awaiting a response from the Defendants, and alternatively, stricken
from the record.

s/ Stephanie K. Bowman
Stephanie K. Bowman
United States Magistrate Judge

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
GERALD THOMPSON,
Case No. 1:16-cv-812
Plaintiff,
Dlott, J.
Bowman, M.J.
v.
WARDEN ERDOS, et al.,
Defendants.

NOTICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written
objections to this Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after
being served with a copy thereof. That period may be extended further by the Court on
timely motion by either side for an extension of time.

All objections shall specify the

portion(s) of the R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in
support of the objections.

A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within

FOURTEEN DAYS after being served with a copy of those objections. Failure to make
objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

3