Filed: May 18, 2015
Latest Update: May 18, 2015
Summary: ORDER (1) ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, (3) DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, and (4) DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE PATRICK J. DUGGAN , District Judge . Proceeding pro se, Plaintiff Charles Taylor, a Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) prisoner, filed this civil rights lawsuit in the Western District of Michigan on February 25, 2014. The case was subsequently tr
Summary: ORDER (1) ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, (3) DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, and (4) DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE PATRICK J. DUGGAN , District Judge . Proceeding pro se, Plaintiff Charles Taylor, a Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) prisoner, filed this civil rights lawsuit in the Western District of Michigan on February 25, 2014. The case was subsequently tra..
More
ORDER (1) ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, (3) DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, and (4) DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE
PATRICK J. DUGGAN, District Judge.
Proceeding pro se, Plaintiff Charles Taylor, a Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) prisoner, filed this civil rights lawsuit in the Western District of Michigan on February 25, 2014. The case was subsequently transferred to this Court. The remaining Defendants are Russell Savoie and Nicholas Sanford, both of whom are MDOC unit officers. The Court referred all pretrial matters to Magistrate Judge Michael Hluchaniuk.
On August 1, 2014, Defendants Savoir and Sanford filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that the complaint should be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. On April 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request for appointment of counsel. On April 23, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R), recommending that the Court grant summary judgment in favor of Defendants Savoir and Sanford and dismiss the complaint without prejudice on the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. At the conclusion of the R&R, Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk advised the parties that they may object and seek review of the R&R within fourteen days, and that "[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal." R&R at 14 (ECF No. 17). Plaintiff has not filed objections to the R&R and the time to do so has expired.1
The Court has carefully reviewed the R&R and concurs with the conclusions reached by the Magistrate Judge. The Court therefore adopts the R&R. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the R&R is ADOPTED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment of Defendants Savoir and Sanford is GRANTED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel is DENIED AS MOOT;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
