United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Mag. Judge Anthony P. Patti
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE’S REPORT & RECOMMENDATION  DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT , REJECTING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO THE ORDER  GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO QUASH , AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE’S REPORT & RECOMMENDATION  GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [20, 25]
JUDITH E. LEVY United States District Judge
Van Jenkins, a prisoner at the Parnall Correctional Facility, filed this action in the Western District of Michigan on December 5, 2013, against the Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”), the Michigan Parole Board, MDOC’s Absconder Recovery Unit, Parole Agent Patrick M. Clark, Douglas Fox, Probation Agent Erika T. Saxton, Absconder Recovery Unit Officer Clinton Bradley, Detroit Reentry Center Parole Agent Gary Edwards, Charles Sinclair, Michelle Risely, Fern Beam, Annette White, Adrian L. Green, and unidentified officers, agents, and staff. Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, and the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”).
Following an order of partial dismissal by Judge Robert Holmes Bell, only defendants Clark, Fox, Saxton, Bradley, Edwards, Beam, White, Green, and unknown parties under the PLRA remained in this case. (Dkt. 4 at 16.) On July 15, 2014, defendants Fox, Saxton, Bradley, Edwards, and White filed a motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. 20.) On August 21, 2014, defendant Beam also filed a motion for summary judgment.
The case was transferred to this district on May 6, 2014 (Dkt. 1), and reassigned to this Court on May 13, 2014. (Dkt. 8.)
Before the Court are plaintiff’s objections to (1) the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation denying plaintiff’s motion for contempt, (2) the Magistrate Judge’s Order granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motion to quash, and (3) the Report and Recommendation granting both pending motions for summary judgment. (Dkt. 51, 54.)
For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff’s objections are rejected and the Report and Recommendations are adopted as the findings and conclusions of this Court.
The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 45) sets out the facts and procedural background of the case in a clear and accurate fashion and they are hereby adopted.
II. Standard of Review
a. Non-Dispositive Motions
A denial of a motion for contempt and a grant of a motion to quash a subpoena are non-dispositive order. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(e)(2). The district court reviews non-dispositive orders issued by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), which states in relevant part: “A judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial matter under this subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure further provides:
When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party's claim or defense is referred to a magistrate judge to hear and decide, the magistrate judge must promptly conduct the required proceedings and, when appropriate, issue a written order stating the decision. A party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a copy. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely objected to. The district judge in the case must ...