Wright v. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
R ODERICK WRIGHT, 	)
Plaintiff, 	)
) 	No. 1:25-cv-1367
-v- 	)
) 	Honorable Paul L. Maloney
AMERICAN SPEECH-LANGUAGE -HEARING 	)
ASSOCIATION, 	)
Defendant. 	)
)
ORDER DENYING OBJECTION
AND
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Roderick Wright, proceeding without the assistance of counsel, filed a
motion for a temporary restraining order and for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 2). The
court denied the request for a temporary restraining order and referred the remainder of the
request to the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff has since filed a motion to expedite ruling on his
motion (ECF No. 47). The Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending the court deny
Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction and the motion to expedite (ECF No. 55).
Plaintiff 	filed 	objections 	(ECF 	No. 	61). 	The 	court 	will 	adopt 	the 	report 	and
recommendations and will deny Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
Plaintiff also filed a motion for a protective order (ECF No. 52), which the Magistrate
Judge denied (ECF No. 56). Plaintiff objects to the order denying his motion for a protective
order (ECF No. 61).
Case 1:25-cv-01367-PLM-MV ECF No. 65, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/06/26 Page 1
of 6

2
A. ECF No. 52 and ECF No. 56 - Motion for a Protective Order
Defendant American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) sought to
depose Plaintiff. 	Plaintiff suffers from disabilities and requested that any deposition be
conducted remotely, limited to three hours, and that he be allowed a fifteen-minute break
every hour with additional breaks as necessary (ECF No. 52-1 PageID.565). Plaintiff
provided dates for the deposition. Plaintiff indicated he was available on March 29 through
April 4, 2026. He also informed Defendant that he had a “hard stop” at 1:00 p.m. on March
30, March 31, and April 2.
Defense counsel responded. Counsel did not expect the deposition to last more than
three hours (ECF No. 52-1 PageID.564). Counsel, however, declined to agree to limit the
deposition to three hours. 	Counsel also declined to agree to allow breaks as needed.
Defendant noticed the deposition for March 31 at 9:00 a.m.
In his motion for a protective order, Plaintiff seeks to enforce his requested
accommodations or, alternatively, have the deposition occur on April 1 or April 3. 	The
Magistrate Judge denied the motion and encouraged the parties to try to resolve the matter
without court intervention. Plaintiff objects.
Rule 72(a) allows a party to object to a ruling by a magistrate judge by filing objections
in the district court where the case is assigned. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Under the Rule, the
district court judge “must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the
order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.”
Id. Under this standard, factual findings
are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard and matters of law are reviewed de novo.
Bisig v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 940 F.3d 205, 219 (6th Cir. 2019). A “foremost principle”
Case 1:25-cv-01367-PLM-MV ECF No. 65, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/06/26 Page 2
of 6

3
of this standard “is that a finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to
support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, North
Carolina, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985) (quoting
United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S.
364, 395 (1948)). An order is contrary to law when it “fails to apply or misapplies relevant
statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.”
Bisig, 940 F.3d at 219 (citation omitted).
Plaintiff has not established that the Magistrate Judge’s order relies on an erroneous
fact or is contrary to law. Plaintiff expresses concern that Defense counsel will not limit the
deposition to three hours. 	Plaintiff has made defense counsel aware of the need to end
deposition by 1:00 p.m. Defense counsel has also been made aware of Plaintiff’s desire to
limit the deposition to three hours and his need for breaks. 	With knowledge of the 1:00
p.m. deadline and Plaintiff’s requested accommodations, defense counsel noticed the
deposition for March 31. At this point, the court must assume defense counsel intends to
honor Plaintiff’s request. 	Plaintiff has not established otherwise. 	Should problems arise
during or after the deposition, the court would entertain an appropriate motion.
B. ECF No. 2, ECF No. 47 and ECF No. 55 – Motion for a Preliminary Injunction
Plaintiff 	requests 	a 	preliminary 	injunction 	that 	would 	enjoin 	Defendant 	from
publishing or otherwise disclosing any disciplinary action against Plaintiff during the course
of this lawsuit.
The Magistrate Judge concludes that Plaintiff makes conclusory allegations but did
not sufficiently support his claim that Defendant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), the Rehabilitation Act (RA), or took any retaliatory action. 	The Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-01367-PLM-MV ECF No. 65, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/06/26 Page 3
of 6

4
further concludes that Plaintiff has not established that Defendant failed to provide requested
accommodations or failed to engage in the interactive process. Finally, the Magistrate Judge
concludes that Plaintiff did not demonstrate an irreparable harm without the injunction.
Plaintiff objects.
After being served with a report and recommendation (R&R) issued by a magistrate
judge, a party has fourteen days to file written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations. 	28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	A district court judge
reviews de novo the portions of the R&R to which objections have been filed. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Only those objections that are specific are entitled to a
de novo review under the statute.
Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (per
curiam).
Plaintiff has not specifically objected to critical findings and recommendations. First,
Plaintiff does not specifically address or object to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that
Plaintiff’s 	evidence 	does 	not 	show 	how 	Defendant 	failed 	to 	provide 	the 	requested
accommodations. 	As noted by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff requested accommodations
and Defendant agreed to those accommodations. To the extent Plaintiff argued otherwise
in his motion, the evidence does not support his assertion. 	Second, Plaintiff does not
specifically address or object to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Plaintiff has not
supported his allegation that Defendant failed to engage in the interactive process. Plaintiff’s
assertion that Defendant interacted with Plaintiff’s counsel does not meet Plaintiff’s burden
here. Plaintiff alleges counsel represented him for the ethics dispute while he represented
himself for the ADA accommodations. 	It follows then that Defendant needed to interact
Case 1:25-cv-01367-PLM-MV ECF No. 65, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/06/26 Page 4
of 6

5
with Plaintiff’s counsel. Again, Plaintiff has not established that Defendant failed to provide
any requested accommodations.
Third, most of Plaintiff’s objection addresses the merits of Defendant’s decision
concerning the ethics charge. 	Plaintiff identifies multiple potential problems and alleged
errors. But the Magistrate Judge concluded that evidence of a wrong decision in the ethics
charge does not, by itself, establish that Plaintiff was discriminated against or retaliated
against. 	Plaintiff does not specifically address this conclusion or object to this conclusion.
Plaintiff simply has not connected the alleged discrimination (failure to make reasonable
accommodations and failure to engage in the interactive process) and retaliation with his
allegations that Defendant made errors in its resolution of the ethics charge. Plaintiff’s lack
of evidence to support his discrimination and retaliation claims provides a sufficient basis to
deny the motion for injunctive relief.
See Higuchi Int’l Corp. v. Autoliv ASP, Inc., 103 F.4th
400, 409 (6th Cir. 2024) (noting that likelihood of success on the merits is the most important
factor in the preliminary injunction analysis).
Finally, Plaintiff has not established that the Magistrate Judge erred in finding a lack
of irreparable harm. 	Plaintiff points to the outcome of the ethics charge as damage to his
reputation. 	But that assumes that Plaintiff has connected the ethics charge to his
discrimination and retaliation claims, which he hasn’t. Plaintiff can be compensated for the
alleged discrimination and retaliation if he can prove those allegations.
Plaintiff does not address the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the motion to
expedite should be denied. The R&R and this order render the motion to expedite moot.
Case 1:25-cv-01367-PLM-MV ECF No. 65, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/06/26 Page 5
of 6

6
For these reasons, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 61) to the
Magistrate Judge’s order (ECF No. 52) and OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No.
61) to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 55). 	The court
ADOPTS the report and recommendation (ECF No. 55) and DENIES the motion for a
preliminary injunction (ECF No. 2). The court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to expedite (ECF
No. 47). 	IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 	April 6, 2026 	/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-01367-PLM-MV ECF No. 65, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/06/26 Page 6
of 6