Horn, III v. Washington

District Court, E.D. Michigan·Decided February 5, 2024·No. 5:22-cv-11637·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Stephen Lee Horn, III,

Plaintiff, Case No. 22-cv-11637

v. Judith E. Levy United States District Judge Heidi Washington, et al., Mag. Judge David R. Grand Defendants.

________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF STEPHEN LEE HORN, III’S OBJECTIONS [47], ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTION [46], AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [55]

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge David R. Grand’s Reports and Recommendations (“R&R”) (ECF Nos. 46, 55) for Defendants Heidi Washington, Les Parish, Robert Mulligan, and Kevin Bushroe’s1 motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 31) and Plaintiff Stephen Lee Horn’s motion for injunction. (ECF No. 40.)

1 In his complaint, Horn mistakenly identifies Bushroe as “Brushwick.” (ECF No. 1, PageID.3.) Judge Grand issued the R&R on Plaintiff’s motion for injunction on June 14, 2023 (ECF No. 46), and the R&R on the Defendants’ motion to

dismiss and for summary judgment on September 15, 2023. (ECF No. 55.) The parties were required to file specific written objections, if any, within

fourteen days of service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d). Horn submitted objections to the R&R on his motion for injunction; the objections are dated June 23, 2023. (ECF No. 47.)

Defendants responded to the objection. (ECF No. 48.) As to the R&R on Defendants’ motion to dismiss and for summary judgment, no objections were filed.

I. Background The factual and procedural background set forth in the R&Rs is fully adopted as though set forth in this Opinion and Order. (ECF Nos.

46, 55.) II. Legal Standard

A party may object to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on dispositive motions, and a district judge must resolve proper objections under a de novo standard of review. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B)–(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1)–(3). “For an objection to be proper, Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 72.1(d)(1) requires parties to ‘specify the part of the order, proposed findings,

recommendations, or report to which [the party] objects’ and to ‘state the basis for the objection.’” Pearce v. Chrysler Grp. LLC Pension Plan, 893

F.3d 339, 346 (6th Cir. 2018). Objections that restate arguments already presented to the magistrate judge are improper, see Coleman-Bey v. Bouchard, 287 F. App’x 420, 422 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Brumley v.

Wingard, 269 F.3d 629, 647 (6th Cir. 2001)), as are those that are vague and dispute the general correctness of the report and recommendation. See Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995).

Moreover, objections must be clear so that the district court can “discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious.” Id. (citing Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir.

1991)); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985) (explaining that objections must go to “factual and legal” issues “at the heart of the parties’ dispute”). In sum, the objections must be clear and specific

enough to permit the Court to squarely address them on the merits. See Pearce, 893 F.3d at 346. Because Plaintiff is self-represented, the Court will construe his objection liberally. See Boswell v. Mayer, 169 F.3d 384, 387 (6th Cir. 1999) (“Pro se plaintiffs enjoy the benefit of a liberal construction of their pleadings and filings.”); Stanley v. Vining, 602 F.3d

767, 771 (6th Cir. 2010) (stating that “we read a [pro se] prisoner’s complaint liberally”).

III. Analysis A. Plaintiff’s motion for injunction Plaintiff filed a “motion for a[n] injunction” requesting “computer,

copies, assisted, le[g]al writer.” (ECF No. 40, PageID.280.) The R&R recommends denying Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief. (ECF No. 46, PageID.320.)

In the first paragraph of his objection, Plaintiff states that he “object[s] to the ruling.” (ECF No. 47, PageID.323.) i. Plaintiff’s second paragraph2

In the second paragraph, Plaintiff objects to the R&R’s recommendation that the Court deny his request for a clerk at the facility’s law library. (Id.) Plaintiff states,

2) Plaintiff “object” concerning the denying of having a clerk (not) at this branch facility (MBP) for the law-library as they are hired in “all” other facilities of (M.D.O.C.) for the assistances of case laws

2 It is unclear if Plaintiff intended to raise one or multiple objections. The Court will address each paragraph in Plaintiff’s response to the R&R. (ECF No. 47.) and martial of law, and with forms and could and direction to filing their wone active here at this facility, to assist with the facts that could help Plaintiff to cross examine the Defendants which violates his 6th Amendment.3 (Id.) Defendants argue that “Horn did not raise the issue of the law library clerk in . . . his injunction motion.” (ECF No. 48, PageID.328.)

While it is true that a clerk is not in Plaintiff’s list of “relief requested,” Plaintiff does discuss the lack of a clerk in his original motion, (ECF No. 40, PageID.280 (“[T]heirs no clerk here to assist with the assisting or

reference to proper material.”)), and the R&R addresses Plaintiff’s allegation that he lacks legal assistance. (ECF No. 46, PageID.318.) However, Defendants are correct that “Horn does not specify the

parts of the R&R he is objecting to, as required by E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d).” (ECF No. 48, PageID.328.) Plaintiff reiterates that he wants a clerk in his facility’s law library but does not “address specific concerns with the

magistrate [judge]’s report.” Howard, 932 F.2d at 509 (citing Arn, 474 U.S. at 147). Therefore, this is not a proper objection.

3 Unless otherwise indicated, quotations from Plaintiff’s filings will be reproduced exactly as written, without correction, to avoid changing the meaning of Plaintiff’s submissions. The R&R recommended that Plaintiff’s motion be denied because Plaintiff does not meet the four factors required for a preliminary

injunction: “(1) whether the movant has a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the movant would suffer irreparable injury without the injunction; (3) whether issuance of the injunction would cause substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the public interest would be served by the issuance of the injunction.” (ECF No. 46, PageID.316–317 (quoting Robinson v. Long, 814 F. App’x 991, 994 (6th Cir. 2020)).) The R&R determined that Plaintiff cannot meet the second, third, or fourth factors. As to the second factor, the R&R determined that Plaintiff “has not

demonstrated that he will suffer irreparable harm without immediate injunctive relief” because Plaintiff did not show an actual injury. (Id. at PageID.318.) Plaintiff did not show an actual injury because he “has not

established that ‘the alleged shortcomings in the library or legal assistance program hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim,’” (Id. (quoting Annabel v. Frost, No. 14-10244, 2017 WL 4161107, at *4 (E.D.

Mich. Sept.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI