ORDER

ROBERT J. JONKER, Chief District Judge.

The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Green's Report and Recommendation in this matter (ECF No. 102) and Plaintiff's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 103). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, where, as here, a party has objected to portions of a Report and Recommendation, "[t]he district judge . . . has a duty to reject the magistrate judge's recommendation unless, on de novo reconsideration, he or she finds it justified." 12 Wright, Miller, & Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3070.2, at 381 (2 ed. 1997). Specifically, the Rules provide that:

FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). De novo review in these circumstances requires at least a review of the evidence before the Magistrate Judge. Hill v. Duriron Co., 656 F.2d 1208, 1215 (6th Cir. 1981). The Court has reviewed de novo the claims and evidence presented to the Magistrate Judge; the Report and Recommendation itself; and Petitioner's objections. The Court finds the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 102) factually sound and legally correct.

On April 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed a notice of interlocutory appeal and an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (ECF Nos. 98, 99.)1 The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court certify under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that Plaintiff's interlocutory appeal is not taken in good faith and deny his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (ECF No. 102.)

Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation principally because, according to Plaintiff, the substantive issues he wishes to pursue on appeal are not frivolous. (ECF No. 103, PageID.1220.) Plaintiff's objections are unavailing. This Court denied Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset of his case under the "three-strikes" rule of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff was ordered to pay the full civil action filing fee within 28 days. (ECF No. 6.) The docket reflects that he did so. The same rule bars Plaintiff from proceeding in forma pauperis on appeal. Moreover, Plaintiff has advanced no good faith basis for appeal. The Sixth Circuit determined that his only appealable order is the portion of the March 30, 2018 order denying Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 104, PageID.1230.) Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction compelling the MDOC to change Plaintiff's maximum discharge date from March 6, 2024, to May 7, 2018. The relief Plaintiff sought through the injunction is unrelated to any underlying claim in the case. See Ball v. Famiglio, 396 F. App'x, 836, 837 (3d Cir. 2010) (plaintiff not entitled to preliminary injunction on claims not pending in complaint). Habeas corpus, not § 1983, provides the federal remedy for a state prisoner challenging the fact or duration of his confinement. Finally, Plaintiff appears to acknowledge that he "recently obtained release from prison on parole." (ECF No. 103, PageID.1219.) Under these circumstances, there is no good faith basis for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 102) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the Opinion of this Court.

2. Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (ECF No. 99) is DENIED. Plaintiff has twenty-eight (28) days from the date of entry of this order to pay the entire filing fee for appealing a civil action, which is $505.00, to the Clerk of this Court. Plaintiff's failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this appeal without prejudice by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.