IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

 EASTERN DIVISION

Mumin Israfil, :

 

Plaintiff, : Case No. 2:11-cv-385

 v. : JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

 Magistrate Judge Kemp

Rob Jeffreys, et al., :

 Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 AND ORDER

 Plaintiff, Mumin Israfil, a prisoner at the Ross Correctional

Institution, filed this action concerning the conditions of his

confinement. In his amended complaint, he asserts claims under

the Americans with Disabilities Act, stating that he has a

mobility impairment due to low back pain and that he has been

denied or refused accommodations, disciplined, and retaliated

against due to his disability. Along with his complaint, he

filed a motion for a temporary restraining order based on his

claim that his medical condition prevented him from timely

attending meals, and that prison officials were denying him food. 

He filed a second motion for a temporary restraining order on

June 14, 2011, in which he claimed that he was being threatened

with transfer to another prison because prison officials regarded

his mobility impairment as disruptive, and that he was not likely

to receive ADA accommodations at whatever location he was

transferred to. He did concede that his original request for

preliminary injunctive relief was moot because he had been placed

in segregation and was receiving three meals a day, delivered to

his cell. From a subsequently-filed notice of change of address,

it appears that Mr. Israfil has now been transferred to the

Toledo Correctional Institution.

Case: 2:11-cv-00385-EAS-TPK Doc #: 24 Filed: 11/09/11 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2

Defendants responded to the more recent motion for a

temporary restraining order with both a memorandum in opposition

and an affidavit from Dr. Gary Krisher, the medical director at

RCI. Dr. Krisher’s affidavit, briefly summarized, states that

Mr. Israfil is physically capable of walking, that he has a

history of exaggerating his symptoms, and that he is not

underweight. Dr. Krisher also confirmed that Mr. Israfil had

been kept in the prison infirmary since June 8, 2011, and was

receiving his meals there. Finally, he stated that the Toledo

Correctional Institution is a better environment for Mr. Israfil

because the walking distances are much shorter there than at

Ross. Mr. Israfil did not reply to this response, and has not

filed any more requests for injunctive relief since being

transferred to Toledo.

The Court concludes that Mr. Israfil’s two requests for a

temporary restraining order are moot. His transfer to another

institution both negates any concern about being denied access to

meals at Ross and his claim that he was going to be transferred

for retaliatory reasons. It is therefore recommended that both

motions (#2 and #13) be denied. Further, the Court notes that

Mr. Israfil has filed an amended complaint, so his motion for

leave to file an amended complaint (#14) is now moot as well, and

that motion is denied.

PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS

 If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that

party may, within fourteen days of the date of this Report, file

and serve on all parties written objections to those specific

proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made,

together with supporting authority for the objection(s). A judge

of this Court shall make a de novo determination of those

portions of the report or specified proposed findings or

recommendations to which objection is made. Upon proper

Case: 2:11-cv-00385-EAS-TPK Doc #: 24 Filed: 11/09/11 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3

objections, a judge of this Court may accept, reject, or modify,

in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein,

may receive further evidence or may recommit this matter to the

magistrate judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1).

 The parties are specifically advised that failure to object

to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the

right to have the district judge review the Report and

Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the

right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the

Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140

(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.1981).

/s/ Terence P. Kemp 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 2:11-cv-00385-EAS-TPK Doc #: 24 Filed: 11/09/11 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>