Opinion
23-11958
02-07-2024
Leon Taylor-Bey, Plaintiff, v. Jodi Deangelo and Heidi Washington, Defendants.
Curtis Ivy, Jr. Mag. Judge
ORDER ADOPTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [17]
Judith E. Levy United States District Judge
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Curtis Ivy, Jr.'s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 17) recommending the Court deny Plaintiff Leon Taylor-Bey's motion for an urgent safety transfer (ECF No. 2) and motion for injunctive relief and immediate consideration (ECF No. 3) without prejudice. The parties were required to file specific written objections, if any, within 14 days of service. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); E.D. Mich. L.R. 72.1(d). No objections were filed.
The Court has nevertheless carefully reviewed the R&R and concurs in the majority of its reasoning and in the result. Specifically, the Court agrees that a preliminary injunction is not warranted absent proper notice to Defendants. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a)(1). (See ECF No. 17, PageID.117.) While the Court agrees with Judge Ivy that Plaintiff is also not entitled to a temporary restraining order (“TRO”), the Court will deny Plaintiff a TRO because he has not demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits. See Ne. Ohio Coal. for the Homeless v. Blackwell, 467 F.3d 999, 1009 (6th Cir. 2006); see also Obama for Am. v. Husted, 697 F.3d 423, 436 (6th Cir. 2012) (“When a party seeks a [temporary restraining order] on the basis of a potential constitutional violation, ‘the likelihood of success on the merits often will be the determinative factor.'” (citation omitted)).
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 17) is ADOPTED IN PART. Plaintiff's motion for an urgent safety transfer (ECF No. 2) and motion for injunctive relief and immediate consideration (ECF No. 3) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.