Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

BROWN v. RIVARD, 16-11837. (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan Number: infdco20170822a46 Visitors: 8
Filed: Aug. 21, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 21, 2017
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING 7/14/17 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION SEAN F. COX , District Judge . Acting pro se, Plaintiff commenced this action on May 12, 2016, and the action was transferred to this Court on May 23, 2016. Thereafter, this Court referred the matter for pretrial proceedings before Magistrate Judge Steven Whalen. On July 14, 2017, Magistrate Judge Whalen issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Docket Entry No. 26) wherein he recommends that the Court grant in part and deny in part a m
More

ORDER ADOPTING 7/14/17 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Acting pro se, Plaintiff commenced this action on May 12, 2016, and the action was transferred to this Court on May 23, 2016. Thereafter, this Court referred the matter for pretrial proceedings before Magistrate Judge Steven Whalen.

On July 14, 2017, Magistrate Judge Whalen issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Docket Entry No. 26) wherein he recommends that the Court grant in part and deny in part a motion for summary judgment filed by multiple defendants. More specifically, he recommends that: 1) the Court grant the motion as to Defendants Rivard, Kellogg, Bugbee, Sheet-Parsons, and Barnett, and dismiss those Defendants without prejudice under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); and 2) deny the motion as to Defendants Siefker and Sounder, without prejudice to their filing a renewed motion for summary judgment following discovery.

The time for filing objections to the R&R has expired and the docket reflects that no objections have been filed. The Court hereby ADOPTS the July 14, 2017 R&R and ORDERS that: 1) the Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to Defendants Rivard, Kellogg, Bugbee, Sheet-Parsons, and Barnett, and those Defendants are dismissed without prejudice under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); and 2) the motion is DENIED as to Defendants Siefker and Sounder, without prejudice to their filing a renewed motion for summary judgment following discovery.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer