Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Ford v. Haas, 16-cv-11485. (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan Number: infdco20171219a46 Visitors: 16
Filed: Dec. 18, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 18, 2017
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING THE CONCLUSION SET FORTH IN THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Dkt. 61) AND DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Dkt. 55) MARK A. GOLDSMITH , District Judge . This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of Magistrate Judge David R. Grand, issued on July 24, 2017 (Dkt. 61). In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court deny Plaintiff Brian E. Ford's motion for preliminary injunction (D
More

ORDER ADOPTING THE CONCLUSION SET FORTH IN THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Dkt. 61) AND DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Dkt. 55)

This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of Magistrate Judge David R. Grand, issued on July 24, 2017 (Dkt. 61). In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court deny Plaintiff Brian E. Ford's motion for preliminary injunction (Dkt. 55). On August 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed an objection to the R&R (Dkt. 63). In his motion, Plaintiff, a state of Michigan prisoner, sought to enjoin his transfer to another correctional facility due to safety concerns. The Magistrate Judge recommended denying Plaintiff's motion based on Defendants' representation that they had no intention to send him to the facility in question. However, after issuance of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge was informed that Plaintiff had been transferred to the facility. The Magistrate Judge then held an expedited hearing, during which counsel for Defendants stated that they would be removing Plaintiff from the facility. Plaintiff's removal was confirmed in a later status conference.

After he was transferred out of the facility, Plaintiff filed a notice of withdrawal of his motion, in which he stated that the issues raised in the motion have been resolved (Dkt. 81). Because the issues raised in the motion are no longer in dispute, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (Dkt. 55) as moot.

SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer