Cousino v. Marshall, Township of et al, No. 1:2021cv00679 - Document 23 (W.D. Mich. 2021)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 6 ; Plaintiff's motion 2 is DENIED; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)

Download PDF
Cousino v. Marshall, Township of et al Doc. 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION LEONARD JUNIOR COUSINO, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:21-cv-679 v. HON. JANET T. NEFF TOWNSHIP OF MARSHALL, et al., Defendants. ____________________________/ MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this action on August 9, 2021 with the filing of a Complaint (ECF No. 1), alleging various claims against Defendant Marshall Township and others arising from an ongoing zoning dispute. He accompanied his Complaint with a motion titled “Notice of Request for Emergency Injunctive Relief” (ECF No. 2). The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on August 11, 2021, recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 6). The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 11). Defendants did not file a response to the objections. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has performed de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. For the following reasons, the Court denies the Objections. Plaintiff’s objections, which primarily consist of excerpts from various cases, fail to demonstrate any factual or legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. The Magistrate Judge thoroughly considered the applicable legal standards for injunctive relief and properly concluded Dockets.Justia.com that (1) Plaintiff’s motion fails to satisfy the procedural requirements of FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b), and (2) the balance of relevant factors weighs heavily against granting Plaintiff injunctive relief (R&R, ECF No. 6 at PageID.41-42). Accordingly, the Court denies the Objections and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the Opinion of this Court. Therefore: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF No. 11) are DENIED and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 6) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion titled “Notice of Request for Emergency Injunctive Relief” (ECF No. 2) is DENIED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. /s/ Janet T. Neff JANET T. NEFF United States District Judge Dated: October 5, 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.