BASANSKY v. PARK, 10-cv-13649. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20120313895
Visitors: 7
Filed: Mar. 12, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 12, 2012
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, and DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT MARK A. GOLDSMITH, District Judge. This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen, entered on February 8, 2012 (Dkt. 30). The Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 25) be granted and that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed. Plaintiff has not filed object
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, and DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT MARK A. GOLDSMITH, District Judge. This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen, entered on February 8, 2012 (Dkt. 30). The Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 25) be granted and that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed. Plaintiff has not filed objecti..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, and DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
MARK A. GOLDSMITH, District Judge.
This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen, entered on February 8, 2012 (Dkt. 30). The Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 25) be granted and that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the R&R and the time to do so has expired. Thus, Plaintiff has waived any further right to appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985). As the Magistrate Judge noted in the R&R, there was no violation of Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment or other constitutional rights, and, therefore, Defendants from the Sanilac County Sheriff Department are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not alleged with any degree of specificity a conspiracy between Defendant Terry Stone, a private citizen, and the Defendant deputies; accordingly, Defendant stone is not subject to suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has reviewed the R&R and finds that the Magistrate Judge has reached the correct result for the correct reasons.
Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge's R&R (Dkt. 30) is accepted and adopted as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 25) is granted and Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle