Sedore v. Washington

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

SCOTT SEDORE,

Plaintiff, Case No. 23-10647 Hon. Jonathan J.C. Grey v. Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris

HEIDI WASHINGTON, et al.,

Defendants. _________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 92), DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (ECF Nos. 66, 68), AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S MOTION REQUESTING AN IMMEDIATE RESPONSE/DECISION (ECF No. 97)

Pro se plaintiff Scott Sedore filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit against defendants, alleging that they violated his constitutional rights because Michigan Department of Corrections’ policy prohibits inmates from purchasing fans that have more than two speeds and that are larger than six inches in diameter. (ECF No. 1, PageID.11, 15.) This matter comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris’s Report and Recommendation dated June 10, 2024. (ECF No. 92.) In the Report and Recommendation, Judge Morris recommends that the Court deny Sedore’s motions for preliminary injunction (ECF Nos. 66, 68). (ECF No. 92.) No party has filed an objection 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 June 10, 2024 (ECF No. 92) is ADOPTED

as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Sedore’s motions for preliminary injunction (ECF Nos. 66, 68) are DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Sedore’s motion requesting an immediate response/decision regarding his preliminary injunction motions (ECF No. 97) is DENIED AS MOOT because: (a) Sedore prepared and mailed that motion after the Report and Recommendation

had been issued, but (b) during the time the Report and Recommendation was in the mail from the Court to him. SO ORDERED.

s/Jonathan J.C. Grey JONATHAN J.C. GREY Dated: August 28, 2024 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Certificate of Service

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their respective email or First-Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on August 28, 2024.

s/ S. Osorio Sandra Osorio Case Manager