govinfo:USCOURTS-ohsd-1_25-cv-00937-4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 
WESTERN DIVISION 
 
ROSALIND HOLMES, 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
WARREN COUNTY 
METROPOLITAN HOUSING 
AUTHORITY, 
Defendant. 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
 

Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins 
 
 
 
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 
 
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation issued by Chief 
Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on May 28, 2026 . Doc. 61. The Magistrate Judge 
recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 
56), wherein Plaintiff requests immediate same -day housing stabilization, temporary hotel 
placement, voucher processing, and suspension of tenant screening . Plaintiff has filed 
objections. Doc. 63. Alongside her objections, Plaintiff requests that the Court disqualify 
Chief Magistrate Judge Bowman from this case and reassign this matter. Id. 
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW 
If a party objects within the allotted time to a report and recommendation, the Court 
“shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed 
findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Upon review, the Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. § 636(b)(1). 
 
Case: 1:25-cv-00937-JPH-SKB Doc #: 71 Filed: 06/12/26 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS 
Plaintiff has previously moved for temporary injunctive relief in this case without 
success. Docs. 3, 41. In her renewed motion, Plaintiff requests similar, albeit more-expansive 
relief. Doc. 56. The Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff is not entitled to such relief . 
Doc. 61. Having conducted a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation and 
Plaintiff’s objections, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections must be overruled. As this 
Court explained in a prior order addressing Plaintiff’s previous motion for injunctive relief , 
see Doc. 41, PageID 376, “[a] temporary restraining order is an extraordinary remedy that 
should only be granted if the movant can clearly show the need for one.” Kendall Holdings, 
Ltd. v. Eden Cryogenics LLC, 630 F. Supp. 2d 853, 860 (S.D. Ohio 2008). And here, like before, 
Plaintiff has not met her burden of persuasion in showing that she is entitled to injunctive 
relief. Stenberg v. Cheker Oil Co., 573 F.2d 921, 925 (6th Cir. 1978) ; Doc. 41, PageID 376–78. 
Plaintiff has not shown any likelihood of success. And even if she had, preliminary equitable 
relief is permissible only if there are at least “serious questions going to the merits and 
irreparable harm which decidedly outweighs any potential harm to the defendant if [a TRO] 
is issued.” Frisch’s Rest., Inc. v. Shoney’s Inc. , 759 F.2d 1261, 1270 (6th Cir. 1985) (quoting 
Friendship Materials, Inc. v. Michigan Brick, Inc., 679 F.2d 100, 105 (6th Cir. 1982)). Though she 
has thoroughly discussed the irreparable harm that she perceives as arising from her claims 
against Defendant, she has not demonstrated serious questions going to the merits of th ose 
claims. Thus, Plaintiff’s objections must be overruled and her motion must be denied. 
Further, Plaintiff has not persuaded this Court that Chief Magistrate Judge Bowman 
should be disqualified pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). “[A] federal judge must disqualify 
[herself] from a proceeding where ‘ [her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned’ or 
Case: 1:25-cv-00937-JPH-SKB Doc #: 71 Filed: 06/12/26 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3 
‘[w]here [she] has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.’” Burley v. Gagacki , 834 
F.3d 606, 615 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), (b)(1)). Plaintiff asserts that Chief 
Magistrate Judge Bowman’s impartiality may be questioned because Plaintiff’s arguments are 
“repeatedly rejected or reframed without meaningful consideration of access -to-court 
consequences.” Doc. 63, PageID 809. Rather than presenting an objection on the merits, this 
assertion directly targets the Magistrate Judge’s judicial rulings . When confronted with this 
kind of objection, the Sixth Circuit has held that “judicial rulings alone almost never 
constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.” Burley, 834 F.3d at 617. Beyond this, 
Plaintiff explains that she has attended public conferences where Chief Magistrate Judge 
Bowman has appeared alongside City politicians and City Solicitor-related officials. Doc. 63, 
PageID 809. Even if accurate, this statement alone, does not demonstrate bias or partiality on 
the part of Chief Magistrate Judge Bowman such that she should be disqualified in this case. 
See Canon 4 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges : A Judge May Engage in 
Extrajudicial Activities That Are Consistent With the Obligations of Judicial Office . Canon 
4 A(1) expressly authorizes judges to “speak , . . . lecture, teach, and participate in other 
activities concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice.” Id. It follows 
that judges can engage in teaching and training activities, particularly in the legal field even 
with attorneys who may from time to time appear before them . Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 
request that Chief Magistrate Judge Bowman be disqualified is denied. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 63) are OVERRULED, the 
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 61) is ADOPTED, and Plaintiff’s 
Motion for Temporary Injunctive Relief (Doc. 56) is DENIED. 
Case: 1:25-cv-00937-JPH-SKB Doc #: 71 Filed: 06/12/26 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
4 
For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation and this Order, Plaintiff’s 
motions seeking duplicative relief, see Docs. 65, 67, 68, 69, are also DENIED. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
June 12, 2026 
 Jeffery P. Hopkins 
 United States District Judge 
 
Case: 1:25-cv-00937-JPH-SKB Doc #: 71 Filed: 06/12/26 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight