UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANDERSON LEE FERNANDERS,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 09-12933

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HONORABLE AVERN COHN

COMMUNITY HEALTH/HAWTHORNE

CENTER,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

ORDER 

OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS (Doc. 89)

AND 

ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 84)

AND

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF(Doc. 72)

I.

This is an employment discrimination case. Plaintiff Anderson Lee Fernanders,

proceeding pro se, asserted several claims against his former employer, the Michigan

Department of Community Health/Hawthorne Center. The matter was referred to a

magistrate judge for pretrial proceedings. (Doc. 3). Following dispositive motions by

defendant, only plaintiff’s claim for race discrimination under Title VII remained. (See

Docs. 15, 23, 31,46 ). Plaintiff filed a motion for temporary restraining order and

preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin defendant and its officers from engaging in

threatening or retaliatory behavior regarding any witness or victim of alleged

2:09-cv-12933-AC-RSW Doc # 90 Filed 08/14/12 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1025
1

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s sole claim. (Doc.

74). That motion is the subject of a separate order.

2

discrimination. (Doc. 72).1

 The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation

(MJRR), recommending that plaintiff’s motion be denied. (Doc. 84). Before the Court

are plaintiff’s objections to the MJRR. (Doc. 89). For the reasons that follow, plaintiff’s

objections will be overruled, the MJRR will be adopted, and plaintiff’s motion for

injunctive relief will be denied.

II.

A district court must conduct a de novo review of the parts of a magistrate

judge’s report and recommendation to which a party objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The district “court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate” judge. Id. The requirement of de novo

review “is a statutory recognition that Article III of the United States Constitution

mandates that the judicial power of the United States be vested in judges with life

tenure.” United States v. Shami, 754 F.2d 670, 672 (6th Cir. 1985). Accordingly,

Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) to “insure[] that the district judge would

be the final arbiter” of a matter referred to a magistrate judge. Flournoy v. Marshall, 842

F.2d 875, 878 (6th Cir. 1987). 

III.

The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s objections. Nothing in the objections convince

the Court that the magistrate judge erred in his recommendation. As noted above,

defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The magistrate judge recommended

the motion be granted. The Court has agreed and adopted the magistrate judge’s

2:09-cv-12933-AC-RSW Doc # 90 Filed 08/14/12 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1026
3

recommendation in a separate order. Given that defendant is entitled to summary

judgment, plaintiff cannot obtain injunctive relief because he cannot show he is likely to

succeed on the merits of his claim. Moreover, as the magistrate judge explained,

plaintiff cannot obtain injunctive relief against defendant for taking alleged illegal actions

at some unspecified point in the future.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED. The findings and

conclusions of the magistrate judge in the MJRR are ADOPTED as the findings and

conclusions of the Court. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief is DENIED. 

SO ORDERED.

 S/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: August 14, 2012

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

record on this date, August 14, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160

2:09-cv-12933-AC-RSW Doc # 90 Filed 08/14/12 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1027