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.

White v. Jindal

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

February 27, 2015

MARK WHITE, Plaintiff,
v.
ROSLYN JINDAL, et al., Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 98) AND DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 82) AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (Doc. 94)

AVERN COHN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I.

This is a prisoner civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is currently proceeding pro se[1] and the matter has been referred to a magistrate judge for all pretrial proceedings. (Doc. 12). Following motion practice by plaintiff and defendants, plaintiff’s claims are against persons with the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) claiming a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. See Doc. 73.

Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 82) and a motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 94), essentially seeking a judgment in his favor that defendants have violated hi rights. Defendants filed a response to both, contending that summary judgment is premature as no discovery has taken place and that plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is otherwise improper. (Docs. 89, 95).

On February 7, 2015, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (MJRR), recommending that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied without prejudice and plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied. (Doc. 98).

II.

Neither party has filed objections to the MJRR and the time for filing objections has passed. The failure to file objections to the report and recommendation waives any further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the magistrate judge's report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the motions. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The Court has reviewed the MJRR and agrees with the magistrate judge’s recommendations.

III.

Accordingly, the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED.

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.