KING v. SANDERS, 13-12816. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20140512d38
Visitors: 16
Filed: Mar. 31, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 31, 2014
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT SANDERS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PATRICK J. DUGGAN, District Judge. On June 27, 2013, Plaintiff commenced this civil rights action against Defendant pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging retaliation in violation of his First Amendment rights. On September 24, 2013, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. (ECF No. 4.) This matter has been referred for all pretrial matters to Magistrate Judge Charles
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT SANDERS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PATRICK J. DUGGAN, District Judge. On June 27, 2013, Plaintiff commenced this civil rights action against Defendant pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging retaliation in violation of his First Amendment rights. On September 24, 2013, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. (ECF No. 4.) This matter has been referred for all pretrial matters to Magistrate Judge Charles E..
More
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT SANDERS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
PATRICK J. DUGGAN, District Judge.
On June 27, 2013, Plaintiff commenced this civil rights action against Defendant pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging retaliation in violation of his First Amendment rights. On September 24, 2013, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. (ECF No. 4.) This matter has been referred for all pretrial matters to Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder. (ECF No. 5.)
On March 3, 2014, Magistrate Judge Binder issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) in which he recommends that this Court deny Defendant's motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 8.) Magistrate Judge Binder concludes that Plaintiff presents sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact relevant to his First Amendment retaliation claim. At the conclusion of his R&R, Magistrate Judge Binder informs the parties that they must file any objections to the R&R within fourteen days. (Id. at 9.) He further advises that the "[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal." (Id. at 9-10, citations omitted). Neither party filed objections to the R&R.
This Court has carefully reviewed the R&R and concurs with the conclusions reached by Magistrate Judge Binder.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED, that Defendant Sander's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
