Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lee v. Birkett

March 22, 2010

CHRISTOPHER LEE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
THOMAS BIRKETT, O'BELL T. WINN, DONALD RICUMSTRICT, CARY WALKER, KAREN PETERS, MICHAEL KRAJNIK, CAROLLE WALKER, AND JAMES MCMEEKIM, DEFENDANTS.*FN1



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Avern Cohn United States District Judge

HONORABLE AVERN COHN

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. Nos. 24, 51) AND DISMISSING THE CASE

I.

This is a prisoner civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In general terms, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, claims that defendants failed to provide sanitary prison conditions which posed a threat to his health in violation of his constitutional rights. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge for all pre-trial proceedings. Defendants filed motions for summary judgment. Specifically, on July 2, 2009, defendants Thomas Birkett, O'Bell T. Winn, Donald Ricumstrict, Cary Walker, Karen Peters, Michael Krajnik and Carolle Walker filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 24). On August 18, 2009, defendant James McMeekin filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 51). On February 18, 2010, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (MJRR), recommending that both motions be granted (Doc. No. 109).

Before the Court are plaintiff's objections to the MJRR (Doc. No. 111). For the reasons that follow, the objections will be overruled, the MJRR will be adopted, defendants' motions for summary judgment will be granted, and the case will be dismissed.

II.

A district court must conduct a de novoreview of the parts of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which a party objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district "court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate" judge. Id.

A general objection, or one that merely restates the arguments previously presented, is not sufficient to alert the court to alleged errors on the part of the magistrate judge. An "objection" that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a magistrate judge's suggested resolution, or simply summarizes what has been presented before, is not an objection as that term is used in this context. Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 508 (6th Cir. 1991).

III.

Plaintiff makes several objections to the MJRR. The Court has reviewed the objections and find they lack merit. The majority of plaintiff's objections simply state his disagreement with the magistrate judge and offer no additional argument or evidence which was not before the magistrate judge. Plaintiff also appears to object to the magistrate judge's alleged failure to consider all of his allegations of unsanitary conditions which forms the basis of his Eighth Amendment claim. Even if the magistrate judge did not articulate each of plaintiff's allegations, plaintiff fails to provide any evidence of these allegedly unsanitary conditions to defeat summary judgment. As noted in the MJRR, defendants provided detailed evidence of the sanitation policies and there is no evidence these were not followed.

III.

Accordingly, plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED. The MJRR is ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Defendants' motions for summary judgment are GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED.*fn2

SO ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.