Phillips-Addis #420015 v. Bottrell et al, No. 1:2020cv00620 - Document 134 (W.D. Mich. 2021)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 117 ; motions for injunctive relief 69 , 71 , 75 , 77 , 108 and 115 are DENIED; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)

Download PDF
Phillips-Addis #420015 v. Bottrell et al Doc. 134 Case 1:20-cv-00620-JTN-RSK ECF No. 134, PageID.1169 Filed 08/20/21 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ANDREW J. PHILLIPS-ADDIS, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:20-cv-620 v. HON. JANET T. NEFF NOAH BOTTRELL, et al., Defendants. ____________________________/ MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff initiated this prisoner civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in July 2020 and subsequently filed several motions requesting various forms of injunctive relief. This Court denied Plaintiff’s first set of motions seeking injunctive relief. See Opinion and Order of Partial Dismissal (ECF Nos. 60-61). Plaintiff subsequently filed more motions seeking injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 69, 71, 75, 77, 108 & 115). The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R), recommending that the motions 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. Plaintiff’s requests for injunctive relief in this case have been thoroughly described and considered by this Court and the Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff’s second set of motions for injunctive relief “fail for the same reasons as his previous 14 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-cv-00620-JTN-RSK ECF No. 134, PageID.1170 Filed 08/20/21 Page 2 of 2 claims for injunctive relief,” to wit: “Plaintiff has not met his burden for issuance of a TRO” (R&R, ECF No. 117 at PageID.1041). Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation demonstrate his disagreement with the result recommended by the Magistrate Judge, but his objections do not demonstrate any error by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the Opinion of this Court. Therefore: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF No. 119, as supplemented by ECF No. 122) are DENIED and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 117) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions for injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 69, 71, 75, 77, 108 & 115) are DENIED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. /s/ Janet T. Neff JANET T. NEFF United States District Judge Dated: August 20, 2021 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.