ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF ## 43, 45), GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF #17). AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (ECF #11)

MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Deontay Johnson ("Johnson"), Ronald Whitney ("Whitney"), and Dorian Willis ("Willis") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") have filed a prisoner civil rights Complaint related to their incarceration at the Macomb County Jail. Plaintiffs allege that two employees of the jail, Defendants Anthony Wickersam and Michelle Sanborn (collectively "Defendants"), violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (See Compl., ECF #1.) Plaintiffs have also moved for a Temporary Restraining Order. (See ECF #11.)

Plaintiffs allege that in August 2013, the Macomb County Jail instituted a new policy with respect to inmate mail. (See Compl. at ¶1) According to Plaintiffs, before establishment of this new policy, inmates at the Macomb County Jail could receive any magazine that did not "create a threat to jail order" or that did not "contain sexual, racial, or ethnic profanity . . ." (Id. at Exhibit B, Pg. ID 16.) Plaintiffs assert, however, that the new policy, among other things, allows inmates to receive only twelve specifically identified magazines, such as Time and The Oprah Magazine. (Id. at Exhibit A, Pg. ID 12.) Plaintiffs contend that the new policy prevents them from receiving the magazines of their choice, including "African-American magazines" such as Ebony. (Id. at ¶1, n.1.) In addition, Plaintiff Whitney filed a "supplemental" Complaint, alleging that a prison official identified only as "Deputy Officer, Badge #333" wrongly denied him receipt of a letter from a non-incarcerated individual. (See ECF #13 at ¶¶1-2.)

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss all of Plaintiffs' claims, including Whitney's "supplemental" Complaint. (See Motion, ECF #17.) On September 10, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (the "September 10 R&R") recommending that the Court deny Defendants' motion with respect to Plaintiffs' initial Complaint. (See ECF #43.) The Magistrate Judge found that while Plaintiffs "may or may not ultimately prevail," they "have stated a factually plausible First Amendment claim." (Id. at 8, Pg. ID 226.) As to Whitney's "supplemental" Complaint, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss that claim because "Whitney has not alleged the personal involvement of the named Defendants, Anthony Wickersham and Michelle Sanborn." (Id.)

On September 11, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (the "September 11 R&R") recommending that the Court deny Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order. (See ECF #45.) The Magistrate Judge first recommended that the Court deny Plaintiffs' motion with respect to Plaintiffs Johnson and Willis because neither is currently incarcerated at the Macomb County Jail, and their claims for a TRO are therefore moot. (See id. at 4, Pg. ID 234, citing Kensu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d 172, 175 (6th Cir. 1996).) The Magistrate Judge then analyzed Whitney's claim separately because the Magistrate Judge believed Whitney still to be incarcerated at the Macomb County Jail. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court hold that Whitney had not established an entitlement to preliminary relief. (See id. at 4-8, Pg. ID 235-238.)1

No party has objected to either the September 10 R&R or the September 11 R&R. Failure to file objections to a Report and Recommendation waives any further right to appeal. See Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The Court has nevertheless reviewed both the September 10 R&R and the September 11 R&R and agrees with the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge included in both reports.

The Court further notes an additional reason for denying Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order. As explained in footnote one above, it appears that Plaintiff Whitney is no longer incarcerated at the Macomb County Jail. (See ECF ## 36, 40, and 41.) Therefore, Whitney's request for preliminary relief — like the request of his co-plaintiffs — is now moot.2

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the September 10 R&R (ECF #43) and the September 11 R&R (ECF #45) are ADOPTED as the Opinion of this Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, for the reasons stated in the September 10 R&R, that Defendants' December 23, 2013, Motion to Dismiss (ECF #17) is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff Whtiney's "supplemental" Complaint (ECF #13) and DENIED with respect to Plaintiffs' initial Complaint (ECF #1.) IT IS ADDITIONALLY ORDERED, for the reasons stated in the September 11 R&R, that Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF #11) is DENIED.