Hawthorne #180295 v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RICKY HAWTHORNE,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
Case No. 1:25-cv-416
Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
ORDER
In this prisoner civil rights case, Plaintiff has filed a pro se motion requesting that the Court
order Defendant the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) to provide him photocopies of
the exhibits attached to its motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff argues that the MDOC’s
policies require it to loan money to Plaintiff for the purposes of photocopying documents that are
necessary for his court filings, and that failing to do so violates his constitutional right to court
access. In response, the MDOC notes that the documents Plaintiff seeks copies of have already
been filed with the Court as exhibits to the MDOC’s prior motion, so it is unnecessary for Plaintiff
to file additional copies as an exhibit to his filings. On January 7, 2026, Magistrate Judge Phillip
J. Green issued a report and recommendation (R&R) that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion because
requiring additional photocopying is unnecessary (ECF No. 47). Plaintiff subsequently filed
objections to the R&R (ECF No. 48).
Upon review of an R&R, the Court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate
judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Plaintiff’s
objection reiterates his request for photocopying, but does not address the primary reason provided
Case 1:25-cv-00416-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/18/26 Page 1
of 2

2
in the R&R for denying the motion: namely, the fact that additional photocopies of prior exhibits
serve little purpose. Plaintiff presumably has access to these exhibits given that he has been mailed
a copy of the MDOC’s motion for summary judgment. (See ECF No. 25, PageID.223.) There is
no need to attach additional copies of those exhibits to his filings, as he is free to reference the
exhibits already filed by the MDOC on the docket. Plaintiff also expresses concern about
preserving the record on appeal, but there is no reason to think referencing exhibits from another
parties’ filings would create any issues for an appeal. Finally, Plaintiff objects to the magistrate
judge’s decision to construe his request as one for a preliminary injunction, but this objection is
meritless because the Court would deny the request regardless of how it is construed.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R (ECF No. 48) are
OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the R&R (ECF No. 47) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for an order requiring Defendant the
Michigan Department of Corrections to make photocopies of exhibits (ECF No. 43) is DENIED.
Dated: February 18, 2026 /s/ Hala Y. Jarbou
HALA Y. JARBOU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00416-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/18/26 Page 2
of 2