Brown v. Mohr et al

Filing 224

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: It is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's 223 Emergency Motion/Addendum to Motion for Protection and for a Preliminary Injunction be DENIED. Objections to R&R due by 5/7/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura on 4/23/2018. (kpt)(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
EASTERN DIVISION

STEVEN S. BROWN,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 2:13-cv-06
Judge George C. Smith
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura

v.

DIRECTOR MOHR, et al.,
Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On April 18, 2018, Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a motion styled as
“Emergency Motion Addendum to Motion for Protection and for a Preliminary Injunction.”
(ECF No. 223). He asks the Court to prevent the destruction of his legal documents, order that
he be given medical care, order that he be permitted to have access to the law library, and order
that he be protected from further retaliation. It is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion be
DENIED.
The Court may not grant Plaintiff’s requests. As the United States Supreme Court has
explained, “[a] preliminary injunction is . . . appropriate to grant intermediate relief of the same
character as that which may be granted finally,” but is inappropriate where the injunction “deals
with a matter lying wholly outside of the issues in the suit.” De Beers Consol. Mines Ltd. v.
United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945). Thus, a district court does not have the authority to
issue injunctive relief on the basis of claimed injuries or actions that are unrelated to the
allegations in the movant’s complaint. See Colvin v. Caruso, 605 F.3d 282, 299-300 (6th Cir.

2010).
In his motion, Plaintiff asks the court to restrain and enjoin various prison employees
from retaliating against him for filing and maintaining this action. Plaintiff’s claims in this
action relate to a period of time during which he was incarcerated at Ross Correctional
Institution. Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated there, so the acts of retaliation of which he
complains in support of his request for equitable relief have no relationship to his time at Ross
Correctional institution. The Court cannot, therefore, grant the relief. Accordingly, it is
RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief be DENIED.
PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen
(14) 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). A Judge 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. Upon proper 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).

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Chelsey M. Vascura
CHELSEY M. VASCURA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3