Hicks v. Washington

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM DAVID HICKS JR.,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 21-11563 Honorable Denise Page Hood v.

HEIDI WASHINGTON, et al.,

Defendants. ________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [#74] TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF [#47] AND MOTION FOR EMERGENCY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [#60]

Pro se Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit against multiple defendants. This matter comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti’s Report and Recommendation. [ECF No. 74] In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Emergency Relief [ECF No. 47] and Motion for Emergency Preliminary Injunction. [ECF No. 60] No party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has had an opportunity to review this matter and finds that the Magistrate Judge reached the correct conclusions for the proper reasons. Finding no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Furthermore, as neither party has raised an objection to the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that the parties have waived any further objections to the Report and Recommendation. Smith v. Detroit

Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987) (a party’s failure to file any objections waives his or her right to further appeal); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

For the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation dated November 8, 2022 [ECF No. 74] is ADOPTED as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Emergency Relief [ECF No. 47] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Emergency

Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 60] is DENIED. IT IS ORDERED. s/Denise Page Hood DENISE PAGE HOOD DATED: March 29, 2023 United States District Judge