Opinion
Case No. 13-12808
09-17-2014
ROBERT SANGO, Plaintiff, v. DAPHNE JOHNSON, et al., Defendants.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID R. GRAND ORDER ADOPTING REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS [36, 102, 103], OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS [115, 117, 120] AND DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [17], MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT [18], FINDING AS MOOT [27] MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER [59]
On February 6, 2014, Magistrate Judge Grand issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) [36] recommending that Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment [18] be denied. Plaintiff did not file an objection.
On May 22, 2014, Magistrate Judge Grand issued an R&R [103] recommending that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [27] and Plaintiff's Motion for Supplemental Jurisdiction [66] be found moot. Plaintiff did not file an objection.
On May 22, 2014, Magistrate Judge Grand issued an R&R [102] recommending that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [17] and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [59] be denied. The R&R [102] was served on Plaintiff on May 22, 2014. Plaintiff filed three Objections [115, 117, 120], none of which were timely as they were not filed within fourteen days of May 22, 2014.
Even if Plaintiff's objections were timely made, they are without merit. As the R&R [102] notes, the Court has no power to order the polygraph examination of employees of the Michigan Department of Corrections. Further, placement in segregation without a reclassification hearing, absent other infringing behavior, does not amount to a due process violation.
The Court having reviewed the record, the R&Rs [36, 102, 103] of the Magistrate Judge are hereby ADOPTED and are entered as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [17] is DENIED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment [18] is DENIED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [27] is MOOT;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [59] is DENIED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Supplement Jurisdiction [66] is MOOT;
SO ORDERED.
s/Arthur J. Tarnow
ARTHUR J. TARNOW
SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: September 17, 2014