Opinion
1:20-cv-00017
12-06-2021
CALVIN TANKESLY, Plaintiff, v. ARAMARK SERVICES, INC. et al., Defendants.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE HOLMES
ORDER
WILLIAM L. CAMPBELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 53), which was filed on June 30, 2021. Through the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff's motion for an injunction (Doc. No. 48) be denied. The Court received Objections from Plaintiff (Doc. No. 55) on July 12, 2021. For the reasons discussed below, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is adopted and approved.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.02, a district court reviews de novo any portion of a report and recommendation to which a specific objection is made. United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir. 2001). General or conclusory objections are insufficient. See Zimmerman v. Cason, 354 Fed.Appx. 228, 230 (6th Cir. 2009). Thus, “only those specific objections to the magistrate's report made to the district court will be preserved for appellate review.” Id. (quoting Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987)). In conducting the review, the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat'l Resources Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff's motion be denied because she found that Plaintiff had not demonstrated a strong or substantial likelihood of success on the merits, the balancing of harms did not weigh in favor of Plaintiff's requested relief, and that Plaintiff had not persuasively demonstrated that a public interest would be advanced by his requested relief. (See Doc. No. 53 at PageID # 672).
Plaintiff disagrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that his motion for injunctive relief be denied. (Doc. No. 55). Plaintiff does not argue that the Magistrate Judge erred in her statement of the law. Nor does Plaintiff argue that the Magistrate Judge erred in finding that he had not demonstrated the balancing of harms weighed in favor of the requested relief or that he not demonstrated that a public interest would be advanced by the requested relief. (Id. at PageID # 678-79). Rather, Plaintiff appears to object to the Magistrate Judge's finding that he had not demonstrated a strong or substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his action, arguing that this factor cannot be determined until he is given the benefit of non-interference by the defendants. (Id. at at PageID # 678). The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge did not err in her finding that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a strong or substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Plaintiff's remaining objections fail to provide a basis to reject or modify the Report and Recommendation.
Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and considered Plaintiff's objections, the Court concludes that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted and approved. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for an injunction (Doc. No. 48) is DENIED, and Plaintiff's Motion to Revisit Motion for Injunction (Doc. No. 81) is DENIED as moot.
It is so ORDERED.