Hawthorne #180295 v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RICKY HAWTHORNE,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHGAN DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
Case No. 1:25-cv-416
Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
ORDER
Before the Court are plaintiff Ricky Hawthorne’s objections (Objs., ECF No. 36) to the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that his motion for a preliminary injunction be denied.
(R&R, ECF No. 34.) The magistrate judge’s recommendation rested on Hawthorne’s failing to
establish that he was likely to succeed on his claims or suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction,
on the principle against judicial interference with the day-to-day administration of prisons, and on
the absence of evidence supporting Hawthorne’s factual representations. 	(Id. at 3.) 	Hawthorne
claims he has been unable to conduct legal research to rebut the R&R’s conclusions and relies on
his arguments to the magistrate judge to justify his entitlement to preliminary relief. (Objs. 7–8.)
Under Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s
disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject,
or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the
matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Proper objections are specific. Slater v. Potter, 28 F. App’x 512, 513
(6th Cir. 2002). 	Objections that are “vague, general, or conclusory” are not specific, so raising
them is “tantamount to a complete failure to object.” Cole v. Yukins, 7 F. App’x 354, 356 (6th Cir.
Case 1:25-cv-00416-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 39, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/20/25 Page 1
of 2

2
2001). 	Similarly, it is no objection to “state a disagreement with the magistrate’s suggested
resolution” or “simply summarize[]” what was presented to them. Brown v. City of Grand Rapids,
No. 16-2433, 2017 WL 4712064, at *2 (6th Cir. June 16, 2017).
Hawthorne’s objection does not point to a concrete error in the R&R. It effectively asks
the Court to decide the motion as if the R&R had not been written. If such an objection were valid,
initial reference to the magistrate judge would “waste[] judicial resources rather than saving them.”
Jacobs v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:23-cv-288, 2024 WL 4500930, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 16,
2024). That Hawthorne was without access to legal materials does not excuse the insufficiency of
his objections; the R&R was premised on Hawthorne’s failure to prove his entitlement to an
injunction, a deficiency remedied by presenting evidence rather than legal argument. The Court
declines to reprise the magistrate judge’s analysis of the same record that was before the magistrate
judge on Hawthorne’s say-so.
IT 	IS 	ORDERED 	that 	Hawthorne’s 	objections 	to 	the 	R&R 	(ECF 	No. 	36) 	are
OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the R&R (ECF No. 34) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Hawthorne’s motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF
No. 13) is DENIED.
Dated: November 20, 2025 	/s/ Hala Y. Jarbou
HALA Y. JARBOU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00416-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 39, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/20/25 Page 2
of 2