Summary
denying request for preliminary injunction preventing plaintiffs' transfers to other prisons during pendency of litigation
Summary of this case from Tolliver v. NobleOpinion
CIVIL CASE NO. 06-10961.
March 23, 2007
ORDER
This is a pro se, putative class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which Plaintiffs have named numerous prison officials as Defendants. Before the Court are: (1) Plaintiffs' ex parte motion for preliminary injunction [docket entry #3]; Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and request for a show cause hearing [docket entry #4]; and the January 24, 2007, Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Paul Komives [docket entry # 52] on Plaintiffs' motions.
A court's standard of review for a magistrate judge's report and recommendation depends upon whether a party files objections. If a party does not object to the report and recommendation, the court does not need to conduct a review by any standard. See Lardie v. Birkett, 221 F. Supp. 2d 806, 807 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (Gadola, J.). If a party does object to portions of the report and recommendation, the court reviews those portions de novo. Lardie, 221 F. Supp. 2d at 807. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure dictate this standard of review in Rule 72(b), that states, in relevant part:
The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall make a de novo determination upon the record, or after additional evidence, of any portion of the magistrate judge's disposition to which specific written objection has been made in accordance with this rule. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision, receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
Here, because Plaintiff Rouse filed objections, the Court reviewed de novo those portions of the record to which an objection has been made. See Lardie, 221 F. Supp. 2d. at 807. De novo review in these circumstances requires at least a review of the evidence before the magistrate judge; the court may not act solely on the basis of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. See 12 Wright, Miller Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 3070.2 (1997); see also Hill v. Duriron Co., 656 F.2d 1208, 1215 (6th Cir. 1981). The court may supplement the record by entertaining additional evidence, but is not required to do so. 12 Wright, Federal Practice § 3070.2. After reviewing the evidence, the court is free to accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of the magistrate judge. See Lardie, 221 F. Supp. 2d at 807. If the court accepts a report and recommendation, the court is not required to state with specificity what it reviewed; it is sufficient for the court to state that it engaged in a de novo review of the record and adopts the report and recommendation. See id; 12 Wright, Federal Practice § 3070.2.
See Pl. Rouse's Objs. [docket entry #64]; Pl. Rouse's Obj. Addendum [docket entry #77]. Plaintiff Hoffman expressly stated that he "does not object to the Magistrate's recommendations," with respect to these motions. Pl. Hoffman's Objs., p. 1 ¶ 2 [docket entry #76]. No other Plaintiff made any filings with respect to these motions.
After a de novo review of the record, the Court finds Magistrate Judge Komives' legal conclusions sound and factual determinations correct. Plaintiffs have not satisfied the heavy burden of demonstrating that the circumstances clearly demand injunctive relief. See Report and Recommendation, p. 4-5 (Jan. 24, 2007) [docket entry 52]. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the report and recommendation;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Rouse's objections pertaining to this Report and Recommendation [docket entries #64 and #77] are OVERRULED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Komives' Report and Recommendation [docket entry #52] is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED as an order of the Court;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' ex parte motion for preliminary injunction [docket entry #3] and Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and request for an order to show cause [docket entry #4] are DENIED without prejudice to Plaintiffs renewing their request for injunctive relief when they are able to adduce evidence supporting their entitlement to such relief.
SO ORDERED.