Smith et al v. Berger et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MICHELLA SMITH, et al.,
Plaintiffs, 	Hon. Robert J. Jonker
v. 	Case No. 1:25-cv-1133
BRIAN S. BERGER, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Request for Visitation of
Minor Child. (ECF No. 16). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the undersigned
recommends that Plaintiffs’ motion be denied.
Plaintiffs initiated this action against several individuals as well as a private law
firm. Plaintiffs initiated this action because they disagree with certain decisions
involving a minor child, presumably their daughter, made by the Berrien County Family
Court. Plaintiffs previously moved the Court to order that an individual, presumably
their daughter, be placed in alternative custody. (ECF No. 8). The Court denied this
request. (ECF No. 9, 14). Plaintiffs now move the Court for an Order permitting them
to visit their minor child.
Injunctive relief is “an extraordinary remedy which should be granted only if. .
.the circumstances clearly demand it.” Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County
Gov’t, 305 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2002). To obtain injunctive relief, Plaintiffs must first
Case 1:25-cv-01133-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 20, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/19/25 Page 1
of 3

2
show that they are “being threatened by some injury for which he has no adequate legal
remedy.” Dana Corp. v. Celotex Asbestos Settlement Trust, 251 F.3d 1107, 1118 (6th
Cir. 2001).
If such is the case, the court must then examine several factors: (1) whether the
movant is likely to prevail on the merits, (2) whether the movant would suffer irreparable
injury if the court does not grant the injunction, (3) whether a preliminary injunction
would cause substantial harm to others, and (4) whether a preliminary injunction would
be in the public interest. See Samuel v. Herrick Memorial Hospital, 201 F.3d 830, 833
(6th Cir. 2000). Rather than prerequisites which must each be satisfied, the relevant
factors, none of which are dispositive, are competing considerations to be weighed and
balanced. See Six Clinics Holding Corp., II v. Cafcomp Systems, Inc., 119 F.3d 393, 400
(6th Cir. 1997). Ultimately, the decision whether to grant injunctive relief lies within
the Court’s discretion. See Dana Corp., 251 F.3d at 1118.
Consideration of these factors weighs heavily against Plaintiffs’ request.
Plaintiffs have failed to establish that their underlying claims have merit or that they
are otherwise entitled to the requested relief. In support of the present request,
Plaintiffs merely assert that they possessed an “email” authorizing them to visit with
their daughter and that, despite this email, their attempt to visit their daughter were
thwarted. There is no indication as to the contents of this email and likewise no
indication who authored this email or the context in which it was authored. Plaintiffs
further allege that “the local city police,” after reviewing the alleged email, likewise
prevented them from visiting their daughter. Without additional facts or context, the
Case 1:25-cv-01133-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 20, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/19/25 Page 2
of 3

3
fact that law enforcement was unpersuaded by Plaintiffs’ email further weighs against
Plaintiff’s request as it suggests that there existed a justifiable basis for preventing
Plaintiffs from visiting with their daughter. Finally, the Court finds that interjecting
itself into a state court family matter such as this would both cause substantial harm to
others and be contrary to the public interest. Accordingly, the undersigned
recommends that Plaintiffs’ motion be denied.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons articulated herein, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiffs’
Ex Parte Request for Visitation of Minor Child (ECF No. 16) be denied.
OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk
of Court within fourteen days of the date of service of this notice. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to
appeal the District Court’s order. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United
States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.1981).
Respectfully submitted,
Date: November 19, 2025 	/s/ Phillip J. Green
PHILLIP J. GREEN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-01133-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 20, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/19/25 Page 3
of 3