Israfil v. Jeffreys et al

Filing 24

ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 2 and 13 MOTIONS for Temporary Restraining Order. It is recommended that the motions be DENIED. The MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint (doc. 14 ) is DENIED. Objections to R&R due by 11/28/2011. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P Kemp on 11/9/2011. (pes1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Mumin Israfil,

:
Plaintiff,

Rob Jeffreys, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 2:11-cv-385

:

v.

:

JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
Magistrate Judge Kemp

:
:

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Mumin Israfil, a prisoner at the Ross Correctional
Institution, filed this action concerning the conditions of his
confinement.

In his amended complaint, he asserts claims under

the Americans with Disabilities Act, stating that he has a
mobility impairment due to low back pain and that he has been
denied or refused accommodations, disciplined, and retaliated
against due to his disability.

Along with his complaint, he

filed a motion for a temporary restraining order based on his
claim that his medical condition prevented him from timely
attending meals, and that prison officials were denying him food.
He filed a second motion for a temporary restraining order on
June 14, 2011, in which he claimed that he was being threatened
with transfer to another prison because prison officials regarded
his mobility impairment as disruptive, and that he was not likely
to receive ADA accommodations at whatever location he was
transferred to.

He did concede that his original request for

preliminary injunctive relief was moot because he had been placed
in segregation and was receiving three meals a day, delivered to
his cell.

From a subsequently-filed notice of change of address,

it appears that Mr. Israfil has now been transferred to the
Toledo Correctional Institution.

Defendants responded to the more recent motion for a
temporary restraining order with both a memorandum in opposition
and an affidavit from Dr. Gary Krisher, the medical director at
RCI.

Dr. Krisher’s affidavit, briefly summarized, states that

Mr. Israfil is physically capable of walking, that he has a
history of exaggerating his symptoms, and that he is not
underweight.

Dr. Krisher also confirmed that Mr. Israfil had

been kept in the prison infirmary since June 8, 2011, and was
receiving his meals there.

Finally, he stated that the Toledo

Correctional Institution is a better environment for Mr. Israfil
because the walking distances are much shorter there than at
Ross.

Mr. Israfil did not reply to this response, and has not

filed any more requests for injunctive relief since being
transferred to Toledo.
The Court concludes that Mr. Israfil’s two requests for a
temporary restraining order are moot.

His transfer to another

institution both negates any concern about being denied access to
meals at Ross and his claim that he was going to be transferred
for retaliatory reasons.

It is therefore recommended that both

motions (#2 and #13) be denied.

Further, the Court notes that

Mr. Israfil has filed an amended complaint, so his motion for
leave to file an amended complaint (#14) is now moot as well, and
that motion is denied.
PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that
party may, within fourteen days of the date of this Report, file
and serve on all parties written objections to those specific
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made,
together with supporting authority for the objection(s).
of this Court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.
2

Upon proper

A judge

objections, a judge of this Court may accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein,
may receive further evidence or may recommit this matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions.

28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1).

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object
to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the
right to have the district judge review the Report and
Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver 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); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.1981).
/s/ Terence P. Kemp
United States Magistrate Judge

3