Reinoehl v. Whitmer et al, No. 1:2021cv00061 - Document 25 (W.D. Mich. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 7 ; Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction 3 and motion for a temporary restraining order 4 are DENIED; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Reinoehl v. Whitmer et al Doc. 25 Case 1:21-cv-00061-JTN-PJG ECF No. 25, PageID.696 Filed 03/26/21 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JENNIFER J. REINOEHL, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:21-cv-61 v. HON. JANET T. NEFF GRETCHEN WHITMER, et al., Defendants. ____________________________/ MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this action on January 19, 2021 with the filing of a Complaint against Defendants Gretchen Whitmer, Robert Gordon and the Young Men’s Christian Association of Greater Michiana, Inc. (ECF No. 1). She accompanied her Complaint with a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 3) and a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 4), seeking injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act related to the “unfair practice of preventing all people who do not have a mask from entering the [YMCA] facility” (ECF No. 3 at PageID.339). On January 22, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued a detailed Report and Recommendation (R&R), recommending that this Court deny both motions (ECF No. 7). The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 9). Defendants filed responses to the objections (ECF Nos. 20 & 21). For the reasons stated more fully by Defendants in their responses, Plaintiff’s objections fail to demonstrate any factual or legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis of her motions. The Magistrate Judge thoroughly considered the applicable legal standards for injunctive relief and the record presented and properly concluded that “consideration of the relevant factors weighs Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:21-cv-00061-JTN-PJG ECF No. 25, PageID.697 Filed 03/26/21 Page 2 of 2 heavily against Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief” (R&R, ECF No. 7 at PageID.396). Accordingly, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3), the Court denies the Objections and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the Opinion of this Court. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Objections (ECF No. 9) are DENIED and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 7) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 3) and Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 4) are DENIED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. /s/ Janet T. Neff JANET T. NEFF United States District Judge Dated: March 26, 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.
