UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

N. KALONJI OWUSU I

A.K.A. NATHANIEL PORTER,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-13511

vs. DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS LUDINGTON 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE DONALD A. SCHEER

HARESH B. PANDYA, et.al., 

Defendants. 

___________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

This case comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining

Order and Preliminary Injunction filed on March 8, 2010 (Docket #23). For the reasons

stated below, I recommend that the motion be denied. 

Plaintiff, while incarcerated at the Michigan Reformatory Correctional Facility in

Ionia, Michigan, filed the instant Complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on September

4, 2009, alleging that the defendants had been deliberately indifferent to his serious

medical needs. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that he was denied adequate medical care for

severe back pain. Claiming violations of his Eighth Amendment rights under the federal

Constitution, Plaintiff sought injunctive relief as well as compensatory and punitive

damages. 

In the exercise of its discretion with respect to a motion for preliminary injunction, a

district court must give consideration to four factors: "(1) whether the movant has a strong

likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the movant would suffer irreparable injury

without the injunction; (3) whether issuance of the injunction would cause substantial harm

to others; and (4) whether the public interest would be served by issuance of the

injunction." American Civil Liberties Union of Ky v. McCreary County, Ky., 354 F.3d 438,

445 (6th Cir. 2003)(quoting Rock and Roll Hall of Fame & Museum, Inc. v. Gentile Prods.,
134 F.3d 749, 753 (6th Cir.1998). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c) "requires a district

court to make specific findings concerning each of these four factors, unless fewer are

dispositive of the issue." See In re DeLorean Co., 755 F.2d 1223, 1228 (6th Cir. 1985). 

In seeking an ex parte preliminary injunction, Plaintiff is essentially asking that this

court rule on the merits of his Complaint. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to provide specific

facts from which the inference could be drawn that he is currently exposed to a substantial

risk of serious harm beyond that normally to be expected in a prison setting. Plaintiff has

made no showing that these defendants have drawn that inference and failed to take

appropriate action. On the contrary, Defendants Stieve and Pandya, Plaintiff’s treating

physicians, have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on March 23, 2010, declaring by

affidavit that they were not deliberately or wantonly indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical

needs. They further maintain that they did not knowingly refuse to provide urgently needed

medical care so as to cause residual injuries which could have been prevented with timely

attention (See affidavits attached to Docket #27). It is apparent that Plaintiff has received

regular clinical evaluations and medications to manage his medical condition, but that he

is unsatisfied with the results of Defendants’ treatment. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate

a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim, or that the relief requested would serve

the public interest. For all the reasons stated, I recommend that Plaintiff’s Motion for

Temporary Restraining Order be denied.

Within fourteen (14) days of service of any objecting party's timely filed objections,

the opposing party may file a response. The response shall address specifically, and in the

same order raised, each issue contained within the objections.

s/Donald A. Scheer

 DONALD A. SCHEER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated: April 21, 2010

2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify on April 21, 2010 that I electronically filed the foregoing paper with

the Clerk of the Court sending notification of such filing to all counsel registered

electronically. I hereby certify that a copy of this paper was mailed to the following nonregistered ECF participants on April 21, 2010: NATHANIEL PORTER. 

s/Michael E. Lang 

Deputy Clerk to 

Magistrate Judge Donald A. Scheer

(313) 234-5217

3