Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Black v. Michigan Department of Corrections

United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division

February 17, 2015

IVAN BLACK #497061,, Plaintiff,
v.
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, SAGINAW CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, JESSE LOPEZ, and SUSAN McCAULEY, Defendants.

Patricial Morris, J.

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

MARIANNE O. BATTANI, United States District Judge.

Plaintiff Ivan Black filed this civil rights action, seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on March 9, 2014. On May 9, 2014, the Court referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris for all pretrial matters (Doc. No. 16). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 10, 2014 (Doc. No. 24).

In her Report and Recommendation, dated November 25, 2014, Magistrate Judge Morris recommended that Defendants’ motion be granted for several reasons. First, she concluded that the Michigan Department of Corrections and Saginaw Correctional Facility are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. Second, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the claims against the individual defendants, Lopez and McCauley were barred by the statute of limitations. The Magistrate Judge informed the parties that objections to the Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days of service and that a party’s failure to file objections would waive any further right of appeal. (Doc. No. 27 at 9). Because the docket did not include a proof of service on the Report and Recommendation, the Plaintiff subsequently was given until January 27, 2015, to file objections. (Doc. No. 28). In her Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge instructed the parties that any objection “must be labeled as “Objection No. 1, “ ”Objection No. 2, “ etc.” and further that an “objection must recite precisely the provision of this Report and Recommendation to which it pertains.”

On January 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed a letter asking the Court not to dismiss the case. Plaintiff’s letter does not comport with the instructions regarding objections. Moreover, it does not address the Magistrate Judge’s analysis, which the Courts finds thoroughly recounted the allegations and properly applied the governing law in reaching the recommendation to dismiss the complaint. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations and GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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