Edward Cromer v. Melinda Braman, et al

Filing

OPINION filed : AFFIRMED, decision not for publication pursuant to local rule 206. Alice M. Batchelder (AUTHORING), Chief Circuit Judge; R. Guy Cole , Jr. and Julia Smith Gibbons, Circuit Judges.

Case: 09-1532

Document: 006111116626

Filed: 11/01/2011

Page: 1

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 11a0744n.06
Case No. 09-1532
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

FILED

Nov 01, 2011
LEONARD GREEN, Clerk

EDWARD JAMES CROMER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MELINDA K. BRAMAN, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_______________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

BEFORE: BATCHELDER Chief Judge; COLE and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Chief Judge. Edward Cromer, a pro se plaintiff imprisoned
at the Alger Maximum Correctional Facility in Michigan, brought claims against various prison
officials for violations of numerous constitutional rights and retaliation for the exercise of his First
Amendment rights. In an order dated March 31, 2008, the district court dismissed several of
Cromer’s claims. In an opinion dated March 25, 2009, the district court adopted the report and
recommendation of the magistrate judge, denying Cromer’s motion for summary judgment and
granting Appellees’ motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims. Cromer appealed.
After carefully reviewing the district court’s opinion, the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, Cromer’s brief,1 and the extensive record in this case, we conclude that the district

1

The Defendants-Appellees elected not to file a brief, relying instead on their filings in the court below and
the opinion of the district court.

Case: 09-1532

Document: 006111116626

Filed: 11/01/2011

Page: 2

No. 09-1532, Cromer v. Braman, et al.

court did not err in denying summary judgment to Cromer and granting summary judgment to the
defendants. As the district court correctly set out the applicable law and correctly applied that law
to the facts contained in the record, issuance of a full written opinion by this court would serve no
useful purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, we AFFIRM.

2