From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ford v. Haas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Dec 18, 2017
Case No. 16-cv-11485 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 18, 2017)

Summary

explaining that "at best, [plaintiff's] motion is based on unsupported speculation that he will soon be transferring to [another prison]" and therefore could not show he was in imminent danger of irreparable injury

Summary of this case from Tolliver v. Noble

Opinion

Case No. 16-cv-11485

12-18-2017

BRIAN E. FORD, Plaintiff, v. RANDALL HAAS, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING THE CONCLUSION SET FORTH IN THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Dkt. 61) AND DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Dkt. 55)

This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of Magistrate Judge David R. Grand, issued on July 24, 2017 (Dkt. 61). In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court deny Plaintiff Brian E. Ford's motion for preliminary injunction (Dkt. 55). On August 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed an objection to the R&R (Dkt. 63). In his motion, Plaintiff, a state of Michigan prisoner, sought to enjoin his transfer to another correctional facility due to safety concerns. The Magistrate Judge recommended denying Plaintiff's motion based on Defendants' representation that they had no intention to send him to the facility in question. However, after issuance of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge was informed that Plaintiff had been transferred to the facility. The Magistrate Judge then held an expedited hearing, during which counsel for Defendants stated that they would be removing Plaintiff from the facility. Plaintiff's removal was confirmed in a later status conference.

After he was transferred out of the facility, Plaintiff filed a notice of withdrawal of his motion, in which he stated that the issues raised in the motion have been resolved (Dkt. 81). Because the issues raised in the motion are no longer in dispute, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (Dkt. 55) as moot.

SO ORDERED. Dated: December 18, 2017

Detroit, Michigan

s/Mark A. Goldsmith

MARK A. GOLDSMITH

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 December 18, 2017.

s/Karri Sandusky

Case Manager


Summaries of

Ford v. Haas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Dec 18, 2017
Case No. 16-cv-11485 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 18, 2017)

explaining that "at best, [plaintiff's] motion is based on unsupported speculation that he will soon be transferring to [another prison]" and therefore could not show he was in imminent danger of irreparable injury

Summary of this case from Tolliver v. Noble
Case details for

Ford v. Haas

Case Details

Full title:BRIAN E. FORD, Plaintiff, v. RANDALL HAAS, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Dec 18, 2017

Citations

Case No. 16-cv-11485 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 18, 2017)

Citing Cases

Tolliver v. Noble

These allegations of past transfers are not enough. Indeed, "it is not the purpose of a preliminary…