Berk et al v. Moore et al

Filing 111

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that pltfs re 107 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction be DENIED. Objections to R&R due by 1/17/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 12/30/11. (rew)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
OTTO BERK, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

Civil Action 2:10-CV-1082
Judge Frost
Magistrate Judge King

ERNIE MOORE, DIRECTOR, et al.,
Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiffs, state prisoners housed at the Marion Correctional
Institution [“MCI”], filed a motion for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction asking that defendants be prohibited from
“harassing, threatening, chastising, punishing, or transferring, or
retaliating in any way against the plaintiffs . . . .”
p.1.

Doc. No. 107,

Plaintiffs base their request on the transfer of plaintiff Jeff

Blair from MCI to the North Central Correctional Institution [“NCCI”].
Id.

However, plaintiff Blair indicates that “I have no problem in

sta[y]ing at NCCI. If it causes no problem with the court [sic].” Id.
Notice of Change of Address, Doc. No. 109.
Under these circumstances, and because the plaintiff most
directly impacted does not, apparently, intend to pursue the
extraordinary relief requested in plaintiffs’ motion, the Court
concludes that the motion for interim injunctive relief should be
denied.
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs’ motion for a
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, Doc. No. 107,
be DENIED.
If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report

and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file
and serve on all parties objections to the Report and Recommendation,
specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part
thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto.
U.S.C. §636(b)(1); F.R. Civ. P. 72(b).

28

Response to objections must be

filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy
thereof.

F.R. Civ. P. 72(b).

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to
the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to
de novo review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the
decision of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation.
See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Federation
of Teachers, Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United
States v. Walters,

638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

s/Norah McCann King
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge
December 30, 2011
Date

2