Robinson v. Andrews et al, No. 4:2014cv11987 - Document 132 (E.D. Mich. 2015)

Court Description: OPINION and ORDER Adopting Magistrate Judge's 128 Report and Recommendation, and Denying Plaintiff's 124 Motion for an FBI Investigation and Injunctive Relief. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)

Download PDF
Robinson v. Andrews et al Doc. 132 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON, Plaintiff, Civil Case No. 14-11987 Honorable Linda V. Parker v. STEPHEN ANDREWS, et al., Defendants. ________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S SEPTEMBER 11, 2015 REPORT & RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 128] AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN FBI INVESTIGATION AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF [ECF NO. 124] On May 19, 2014, Plaintiff commenced this action against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants arise from his arrest for an alleged parole violation, the revocation of his parole, and events that occurred after he was re-paroled in May 2011. The matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge Michel Hluchaniuk for all pretrial matters. (ECF No. 40.) On July 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting an FBI investigation and injunctive relief related to alleged misconduct by Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) prison officials and administrative staff. (ECF No. 124.). Specifically, Plaintiff contends that his life has been threatened and he has been harassed since filing this lawsuit. (Id. at 1.) Aside from Michigan Parole Board Dockets.Justia.com member Anthony King-- who is not named as a defendant in the pending lawsuit-Plaintiff does not identify any of the prison officials or administrative staff engaged in the alleged misconduct in his motion. Defendants have not filed a response to Plaintiff’s motion. On September 11, 2015, Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk issued an R&R in which he recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 128.) Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk first indicates that Plaintiff’s request for an FBI investigation is not a remedy the Court can order. (Id. at 2.) Next, Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk evaluates the factors relevant to determining whether Plaintiff is entitled to the injunctive relief he requests. (Id. at 3-5.) He concludes that Plaintiff has not shown that he is entitled to such relief. (Id.) At the conclusion of the R&R, Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk informs the parties that they must file any objections to the R&R within fourteen days of service. (Id. at 5-6.) He further specifically advises the parties that “[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right to appeal.” (Id. at 5.) Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. The Court has carefully reviewed the R&R and concurs with the conclusions reached by Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk. Most notably, in his motion, Plaintiff complains of conduct unrelated to the subject matter of this lawsuit and the 2 conduct does not appear to have been committed by any of the individuals named as defendants in this lawsuit. The Court therefore adopts Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk’s September 11, 2015 Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for an FBI criminal investigation and injunctive relief (ECF No. 124) is DENIED. s/ Linda V. Parker LINDA V. PARKER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: October 21, 2015 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record and/or pro se parties on this date, October 21, 2015, by electronic and/or U.S. First Class mail. s/ Richard Loury Case Manager 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.