UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KEVIN DARNELL RAGLAND,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 08-15253

JASON SCHNEIDER, HONORABLE AVERN COHN

Defendant.

___________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 172)

AND

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Doc. 155)

AND

DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME TO OBTAIN

DISCOVERY/DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS (Doc. 177)

I. Introduction

This is a prisoner civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claimed that

several defendants, police officers from the Oak Park and Southfield Police

Departments, violated his constitutional rights while effectuating his arrest and denying

him proper medical care. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge for all pretrial

proceedings. Following dispositive motions by defendants, only plaintiff’s claims against

Southfield police officer Jason Schneider remain. Subsequently, plaintiff was appointed

counsel (Doc. 181). On March 20, 2013, the Court entered an order rescinding the

order of reference to the magistrate judge (Doc. 182). Before the Court are two pending

matters filed while the case was still on reference to the magistrate judge. This order

resolves these matters.

2:08-cv-15253-AC-MAR Doc # 192 Filed 05/22/13 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1738
2

II. Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

On January 24, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order or

preliminary injunction, seeking an injunction prohibiting certain individuals from denying

him copies of case law (Doc. 155). On February 28, 2013, the magistrate judge issued

a report and recommendation (MJRR) that the motion be denied. (Doc. 172). Plaintiff

has not filed objections. The failure to file objections to the MJRR waives any further

right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370,

1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the MJRR releases the Court

from its duty to independently review the motions. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149

(1985). However, the Court has reviewed the MJRR and agrees with the magistrate

judge.

Accordingly, the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are ADOPTED

as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining

order or preliminary injunction is DENIED. 

III. Motion to Enlarge Time to Obtain Complete Discovery/ Dispositive Motions

In this motion, plaintiff seeks additional time for discovery and for filing a

dispositive motion. In light of the fact that plaintiff now has counsel and an order was

entered extending time for plaintiff to file a response to defendant’s summary judgment

motion (Doc. 191), the motion is DENIED AS MOOT.

SO ORDERED.

 S/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: May 22, 2013

2:08-cv-15253-AC-MAR Doc # 192 Filed 05/22/13 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1739
08-15253 Ragland v. Raby, et al

3

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of

record on this date, May 22, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Sakne Chami 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160

2:08-cv-15253-AC-MAR Doc # 192 Filed 05/22/13 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1740