Berryman v. Stephenson et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Philip Berryman is an 82-year-old man currently incarcerated at Thumb
Correctional Facility in Lapeer, Michigan. He brought this pro se civil rights lawsuit
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in 2021 (ECF No. 1), alleging that various Michigan
Department of Corrections employees and Corizon Health contractors failed to
properly accommodate his many health needs and subsequently retaliated against
him for challenging these failures. Namely, he claims Defendants transferred him to
a new facility, deprived him of a single-person cell, and denied him various special
medical accommodations, including zipper pants, “medical accommodation shoes,”
and a wide-brimmed hat for sun protection. (ECF No. 94, PageID.1303–1304, 1306
(Berryman’s 	amended 	and 	operative 	complaint).) 	After 	a 	year 	of 	unsuccessful
mediation efforts, all pretrial matters in the case were referred to Magistrate Judge
PHILIP BERRYMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
GEORGE STEPHENSON et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 21-10925
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson
Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [199],
OVERRULING OBJECTIONS [202], AND DENYING EMERGENCY
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION [187]
Case 2:21-cv-10925-LJM-PTM ECF No. 205, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/06/25 Page 1 of 6

2
Patricia T. Morris (ECF No. 41), who has handled the many filings Berryman has
made in the interim.
Throughout the pendency of this case, Berryman has repeatedly alleged that
MDOC’s supposed retaliation is ongoing, filing various emergency motions, letters,
and “status updates” advising the Court of his continued concerns. (See, e.g., ECF
Nos. 122, 124.) The present motion (ECF No. 187) is Berryman’s fifth effort to obtain
injunctive relief since this case began. (See ECF No. 8 (July 2021, motion for
restraining 	order 	and 	permanent 	injunction); 	ECF 	No. 	20 	(December 	2021
“emergency” motion); ECF No. 54 (June 2022 “emergency” motion); ECF No. 131
(June 2023 motion).) Therein, Berryman requests an order directing all “Defendants
and their agents Joni MacLean, Janet Nixon, May McLaughlin-Shores, K.Kelly,(DD)
[sic] and Dr. A Malayva” to return his confiscated protein snacks, urinal, wheelchair
cupholder, and eye treatment, as well as provide him with a medically necessary
“high protein diet.” (ECF No. 187, PageID.2575.)
Defendants oppose the motion. (ECF Nos. 191, 192.) Defendants Farris and
Coleman (medical providers previously employed by Corizon) respond that they “were
not involved in the alleged retaliatory acts and are not involved in the medical
accommodations Mr. Berryman does and does not currently receive.” (ECF No. 192,
PageID.2629.) The various MDOC defendants also oppose the motion, noting that the
issues presented in Berryman’s request for injunctive relief were not raised in his
operative complaint (ECF No. 94), and thus there is no legal basis for the Court to
enjoin the alleged misconduct. (ECF No. 191, PageID.2611–2612.) Magistrate Judge
Case 2:21-cv-10925-LJM-PTM ECF No. 205, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/06/25 Page 2 of 6

3
Morris agreed with Defendants and issued a report and recommendation to deny
Berryman’s 	motion. 	(ECF 	No. 	199.) 	Berryman 	filed 	objections 	to 	that
recommendation. (ECF No. 202.)
None of Berryman’s prior efforts for injunctive relief were successful, and
neither is this one. For the reasons below, the Court OVERRULES Berryman’s
objections (ECF No. 202), ADOPTS Judge Morris’ report and recommendation (ECF
No. 199), and DENIES Berryman’s motion (ECF No. 187.)
I.
When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, a
district judge reviews de novo those portions to which the party has objected. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court has no obligation to review
unobjected-to issues. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); Garrison v.
Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, No. 10-13990, 2012 WL 1278044, at *8 (E.D. Mich. Apr.
16, 2012); see also Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (“The district
court need not provide de novo review where the objections are frivolous, conclusory
or general. The parties have the duty to pinpoint those portions of the magistrate’s
report that the district court must specially consider.” (cleaned up)). To that end, the
Court must review at least the evidence that was before the magistrate judge, then
may accept, reject, or modify the findings and recommendation. See Hill v. Duriron
Co., 656 F.2d 1208, 1215 (6th Cir. 1981); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
Case 2:21-cv-10925-LJM-PTM ECF No. 205, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/06/25 Page 3 of 6

4
A.
The Court has carefully reviewed Berryman’s motion for temporary order and
permanent injunction (ECF No. 187) and the parties’ briefing (ECF Nos. 191, 192,
194), Berryman’s interim “progress notes” (ECF Nos. 197, 200, 201), Judge Morris’
report and recommendation to deny the motion (ECF No. 199), the objections filed by
Berryman (ECF No. 202), the MDOC Defendants’ response to those objections (ECF
No. 204), and all other applicable filings and law. Having conducted this de novo
review, the Court finds that Judge Morris’ factual conclusions are reasonably correct,
that she reasonably applied the correct law, and that her legal reasoning is sound.
Thus, there are no prejudicial clear errors in Judge Morris’ thorough findings or
recommendations to deny Berryman’s motion for temporary restraining order and
permanent injunction.
B.
Berryman’s objections fail to support a conclusion to the contrary. Indeed,
Berryman’s primary concern appears to be that Judge Morris, in analyzing the four
factors courts that are required to consider when deciding whether to issue a
preliminary injunction, Thompson v. Dewine, 976 F.3d 610, 615 (6th Cir. 2020),
analyzed the allegations made in Berryman’s operative complaint, rather than the
new 	claims 	raised 	in 	the 	instant 	motion. 	(ECF 	No. 	202, 	PageID.2727–2728
(“Plaintiff’s July 14, 2025 Pleading Motion for TRO/PI does NOT mention ANY
ZIPPER pants or denying him to purchase them. [Judge Morris’ consideration of
zipper pants] is a FRAUD and Intentional Misrepresentation, committed by any
Case 2:21-cv-10925-LJM-PTM ECF No. 205, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/06/25 Page 4 of 6

5
officer of the court and is an unspeakable violation of Justice . . . .”).) Berryman
appears to be confused regarding the nature of the preliminary injunction analysis,
as Judge Morris was required to consider Berryman’s “likelihood of success” on the
merits of his claim—that is, the allegations raised in his complaint. And Berryman
does allege in his complaint that among the retaliatory acts perpetrated against him
was the denial of zipper pants. (ECF No. 94, PageID.1304.)
Indeed, the Court is not empowered to issue injunctive relief for injuries not
clearly related to the claims made in his complaint. See, e.g., Kensu v. Borgerding,
No. 16-13505, 2018 WL 6540262, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 31, 2018) (denying injunction
to compel prison officials to provide plaintiff with Cialis because it was not “clearly
related” to plaintiff’s initial claims that MDOC violated his First Amendment rights
by denying him certain medical devices), report and recommendation adopted, 2018
WL 6527782 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2018). In a similar vein, the Court cannot grant
injunctive relief (or any relief) against non-parties. As both Defendants and Judge
Morris note, the various “agents” against whom Berryman seeks injunctive relief—
“Joni MacLean, Janet Nixon, May McLaughlin-Shores, K.Kelly,(DD) [sic] and Dr. A
Malayva”—are not parties to this case and therefore cannot be subject to an
injunction in this matter.
Nor are Berryman’s claims about his current treatment at Thumb Correctional
Facility related to his complaint allegations, which concern past mistreatment at
Macomb Correctional Facility. “[N]ew assertions might support additional claims
against the same prison officials, [but] they cannot provide the basis for a preliminary
Case 2:21-cv-10925-LJM-PTM ECF No. 205, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/06/25 Page 5 of 6

6
injunction in this lawsuit.” Id. (quoting Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th
Cir. 1994)). And in Berryman’s own words, the allegations he makes against the non-
parties in the instant motion have “absolutely nothing to do” with the allegations
made in his complaint. (ECF No. 202, PageID.2735 (“The Court must review the
Pleading before it, and not . . . allow[] others [to] Intentionally place before it excerpts
taken from a case file that has absolutely nothing to do with the content of the instant
pleadings . . . .”); see also id. (“ECF No. 94 [Berryman’s operative complaint] has
nothing to do with the Plaintiff’s July 14, 2025 Motion for TRO/PI . . . .”).)
II.
The Court therefore adopts Judge Morris’ report and recommendation in full.
(ECF No. 199.) As such, Berryman’s emergency motion for temporary order and
permanent injunction (ECF No. 187) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 6, 2025
s/Laurie J. Michelson
LAURIE J. MICHELSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:21-cv-10925-LJM-PTM ECF No. 205, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/06/25 Page 6 of 6