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.

Brown v. Smith

United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division

March 14, 2018

Davis Brown, #215918, Plaintiff,
v.
Willie Smith, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDAITON

          Paul L. Maloney United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff Davis Brown, a prisoner under the control of the Michigan Department of Corrections, filed a civil rights complaint. He alleges he is completely blind in his left eye and partially blind in his right eye. For the remaining Defendants, Brown generally raises Eighth Amendment claims arising from the medical treatment he received or the lack of treatment.

         There are three pending dispositive motions. Defendant Gerlach filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 74.) Defendant Doyle filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 55.) Defendant Linsley also filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 79.) For these three motions, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (ECF No. 116), to which Plaintiff filed objections (ECF No. 120).

         After being served with a report and recommendation (R&R) issued by a magistrate judge, a party has fourteen days to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). A district court judge reviews de novo the portions of the R&R to which objections have been filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Only those objections that are specific are entitled to a de novo review under the statute. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (per curiam).

         1. Defendant Gerlach (ECF No. 74)

         Gerlach filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, asserting a statute of limitations defense and also claiming that the complaint failed to state a claim. The magistrate judge identified three separate claims against Gerlach: (1) failure to provide a walking cane, (2) obstruction of recommended cornea surgery, and (3) failure to provide appropriate contact lenses. The magistrate judge recommended denying the motion as to the statute of limitations defense, and also as to the surgery and contact lenses claims. The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the failure to provide a cane claim.

         For these recommendations, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, Defendant Gerlach's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 74) is granted in part and denied in part.

         2. Defendant Doyle (ECF No. 55)

         Doyle filed a Rule 56 motion, asserting that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative grievances. The magistrate judge recommended that the motion be denied.

         For this recommendation, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, Defendant Doyle's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 55) is denied.

         3. Defendant Linsley (ECF No. 79)

         Linsley filed a Rule 56 motion, asserting that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative grievances, which the magistrate judge recommended denying. Linsley also asserted that Plaintiff could not prevail on the merits for an Eighth Amendment claim. Because Linsley relied only on the pleadings and did not rely on any evidence, the magistrate judge addressed the motion as one brought under Rule 12. The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion.

         Plaintiff's objections are numbered into 27 paragraphs. Generally, the objections fail to identify any factual mistake or legal error in the report and recommendation.

         Paragraphs 1 through 17 and 19 generally complain that the legal writers at Plaintiff's facility have refused to assist him. These objections are overruled. None of these objections address the findings of ...


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.