JONES v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 1:12-cv-1283. (2013)
Court: District Court, W.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20130828b34
Visitors: 1
Filed: Aug. 27, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 27, 2013
Summary: ORDER APPROVING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JANET T. NEFF, District Judge. This is a civil action. Defendants Michigan Department of Corrections and Daniel Heyns filed a Motion to Dismiss (Dkt 4). Defendants Mary Berghuis, Maria Sahagun and Rebecca Wright also filed a Motion to Dismiss (Dkt 15). These motions were referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation on August 8, 2013, recommending that Defendants' motions be granted in part and denied without prejudice in pa
Summary: ORDER APPROVING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JANET T. NEFF, District Judge. This is a civil action. Defendants Michigan Department of Corrections and Daniel Heyns filed a Motion to Dismiss (Dkt 4). Defendants Mary Berghuis, Maria Sahagun and Rebecca Wright also filed a Motion to Dismiss (Dkt 15). These motions were referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation on August 8, 2013, recommending that Defendants' motions be granted in part and denied without prejudice in par..
More
ORDER APPROVING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JANET T. NEFF, District Judge.
This is a civil action. Defendants Michigan Department of Corrections and Daniel Heyns filed a Motion to Dismiss (Dkt 4). Defendants Mary Berghuis, Maria Sahagun and Rebecca Wright also filed a Motion to Dismiss (Dkt 15). These motions were referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation on August 8, 2013, recommending that Defendants' motions be granted in part and denied without prejudice in part. The Report and Recommendation was duly served on the parties. No objections have been filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt 43) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Dkts 4, 15) are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART. Defendants' motions on exhaustion grounds are denied without prejudice. Defendants' motions regarding events occurring prior to October 6, 2010, at which time Plaintiff executed a settlement agreement in an earlier case, Jones v. MDOC, Case No. 1:09-cv-508, are granted. Defendants' motions regarding failure to state a claim are denied without prejudice to reassertion of the argument after Plaintiff's amended complaint.
Source: Leagle
