GOOD v. HEYNS

Case No. 15-12064.

JONATHAN JOSEPH GOOD, Plaintiff, v. DENNIS HEYNS, C/O Cerny, RUM PEET, SERGEANT LEVY, HEARING INVESTIGATOR SCOTT, GRIEVANCE COORDINATOR PARSONS, and DEPUTY WARDEN McCULLICK, Defendants.

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

Editors Note
Cause: No cause code entered
Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Jonathan Good, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Dennis Heyns, Defendant, represented by Clifton B. Schneider , MI Dept of Attorney General.

Peet, Defendant, represented by Clifton B. Schneider , MI Dept of Attorney General.

McCullick, Defendant, represented by Clifton B. Schneider , MI Dept of Attorney General.

Cerny, Defendant, represented by Clifton B. Schneider , MI Dept of Attorney General.

Levy, Defendant, represented by Clifton B. Schneider , MI Dept of Attorney General.

Parsons, Defendant, represented by Clifton B. Schneider , MI Dept of Attorney General.

Scott, Defendant, represented by Clifton B. Schneider , MI Dept of Attorney General.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 77) AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 72) AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (Doc. 70) AND MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' MOTION (Doc. 75) AND DISMISSING CASE

AVERN COHN, District Judge.

I.

This is a prisoner civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff James Mitchell, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against twenty-one (21) defendants and presenting multiple claims. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial proceedings. See Doc. 6. Following motions and the adoption of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the case was pared down to five claims against six defendants: Director Heyns, C/O Cerny, RUM Peet, Sergeant Levy, Hearing Investigator Scott, Grievance Coordinator Parsons, and Deputy Warden McCullick (Doc. 50). In general, plaintiff claims stem from a Class II ticket for insolence that defendant C/O Cerny issued and of which plaintiff was found guilty following a hearing, resulting in two days of lost privileges. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims. (Doc. 72). Plaintiff filed a motion for an order to show cause (Doc. 70) and a motion to strike defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 75). On May 25, 2017, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (MJRR), recommending that defendants' motion be granted and plaintiff's motions be denied. Neither party has objected to the MJRR and the time for filing objections has passed.1

II.

The failure to file objections to the MJRR 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 MJRR releases the Court from its duty to independently review the motions. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). However, the Court has reviewed the MJRR and agrees with the magistrate judge's analysis and conclusion.

III.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the MJRR is ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff's motion for an order to show cause and motion to strike defendants' motion are DENIED. This case is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. On June 8, 2017, the day objections were due, plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time in which to file objections, asking for a 60 day extension, or until August 3, 2017. (Doc. 79). The Court granted the motion in part, permitting plaintiff until July 24, 2017 in which to file objections. See text only order on June 21, 2017. Both dates have passed.

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases