Carter #410324 v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al, No. 1:2013cv00037 - Document 139 (W.D. Mich. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 120 ; Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction 79 is DENIED; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JOEL MARCEL CARTER, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:13-cv-37 v HON. JANET T. NEFF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants. _______________________________/ MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This is a prisoner civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, requesting that the Court enter an Order mandating that Defendants: (1) provide Plaintiff with appropriate mental health treatment; (2) permit Plaintiff to exercise outside one hour daily; and (3) release Plaintiff from segregation (Dkt 79). The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R), recommending that Plaintiff s motion be denied. The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff s objections to the Report and Recommendation. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has performed de novo consideration of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. The Court denies the objections and issues this Memorandum Opinion and Order. Noting that injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy, the Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the applicable factors warranted relief. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he is likely to prevail on his Eighth Amendment denial of treatment claims (R&R, Dkt 120 at 2). The Magistrate Judge further found Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he would suffer irreparable injury absent an injunction and that the public interest would not be served by judicial interference in the day-to-day operations of a correctional facility absent evidence supporting such (id. at 3). In his objections, Plaintiff asserts that he has shown a likelihood of success on the merits, that he will continue to face irreparable harm if the Court does not grant the injunction, and that public interest would be served by granting the injunction (Objs., Dkt 120 at 1-2). Plaintiff s objections, which reiterate the arguments he set forth in his motion, merely indicate his disagreement with the Magistrate Judge s conclusions. His objections do not identify any factual or legal error that warrants a disposition other than the recommendation by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff s objections. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff s Objections (Dkt 124) are DENIED, and the Report and Recommendation (Dkt 120) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Dkt 79) is DENIED. Dated: September ___, 2014 24 /s/ Janet T. Neff JANET T. NEFF United States District Judge 2
]]>
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.
