Opinion
1:20-cv-620
08-20-2021
ANDREW J. PHILLIPS-ADDIS, Plaintiff, v. NOAH BOTTRELL, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
JANET T. NEFF United States District Judge
Plaintiff initiated this prisoner civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in July 2020 and subsequently filed several motions requesting various forms of injunctive relief. This Court denied Plaintiff's first set of motions seeking injunctive relief. See Opinion and Order of Partial Dismissal (ECF Nos. 60-61). Plaintiff subsequently filed more motions seeking injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 69, 71, 75, 77, 108 &115). The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R), recommending that the motions be denied. The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendation. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3), the Court has performed de novo consideration of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. The Court denies the objections and issues this Memorandum Opinion and Order. Plaintiff's requests for injunctive relief in this case have been thoroughly described and considered by this Court and the Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff's second set of motions for injunctive relief “fail for the same reasons as his previous 14 claims for injunctive relief, ” to wit: “Plaintiff has not met his burden for issuance of a TRO” (R&R, ECF No. 117 at PageID.1041). Plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendation demonstrate his disagreement with the result recommended by the Magistrate Judge, but his objections do not demonstrate any error by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation as the Opinion of this Court. Therefore:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF No. 119, as supplemented by ECF No. 122) are DENIED and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 117) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions for injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 69, 71, 75, 77, 108 & 115) are DENIED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.