CROMER v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 13-CV-14822. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20150225c51
Visitors: 2
Filed: Feb. 24, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 24, 2015
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 41] GEORGE CARAM STEEH, District Judge. This matter is before the court on plaintiff Billy Cromer's action alleging that defendants violated his rights while he was incarcerated at the St. Louis Correctional Facility in St. Louis, Michigan. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment [doc. 28], with defendant Susan Havelka filing a separate motion for summary judgment [doc. 35] in which she adopts and incorporates the argume
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 41] GEORGE CARAM STEEH, District Judge. This matter is before the court on plaintiff Billy Cromer's action alleging that defendants violated his rights while he was incarcerated at the St. Louis Correctional Facility in St. Louis, Michigan. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment [doc. 28], with defendant Susan Havelka filing a separate motion for summary judgment [doc. 35] in which she adopts and incorporates the argumen..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 41]
GEORGE CARAM STEEH, District Judge.
This matter is before the court on plaintiff Billy Cromer's action alleging that defendants violated his rights while he was incarcerated at the St. Louis Correctional Facility in St. Louis, Michigan. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment [doc. 28], with defendant Susan Havelka filing a separate motion for summary judgment [doc. 35] in which she adopts and incorporates the arguments advanced by her codefendants. Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment [doc. 30]. Magistrate Judge Majzoub issued a report and recommendation recommending that defendants' motions for summary judgment be granted on the basis that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The Magistrate Judge further recommends that plaintiff's motion for default judgment be denied on both substantive and procedural grounds. Objections to the report have not been filed by defendant within the established time period. The court has reviewed the file, record, and magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
The court agrees with the analysis conducted by the magistrate judge, and therefore accepts her recommendation that defendants' motions for summary judgment be GRANTED and plaintiff's motion for default judgment be DENIED.
Source: Leagle
