Adams v. Ballard et al
ORDER: The Magistrate Judge's R&R 38 is ADOPTED as and for the opinion of the Court; 2. The motion for S/J filed by defendants Rosita Rodriguez and Robert Simpson 30 is GRANTED; 3. Plaintiff's claims against defendants Rosita Rodriguez and Robert Simpson are DISMISSED; and 4. Plaintiff Charles Adams's Motion for S/J 32 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 03/17/2015.(LC)cc: COR, Plaintiff via u.s. Mail Modified text on 3/17/2015 (LC).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CHARLES EDWARD ADAMS, JR.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-124-KKC
RODNEY BALLARD, et al.,
*** *** ***
This matter is before the Court a motion for summary judgment brought by
defendants Rosita Rodriguez and Robert Simpson (DE 30) and a pro se motion for summary
judgment brought by plaintiff Charles Adams (DE 32). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this
matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct all further proceedings,
including preparing proposed findings of fact and recommendations on any dispositive
motions. (DE 25).
Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins filed his Report and Recommendations (DE 38)
on February 24, 2015. Based on a review of the record and the applicable case law,
Magistrate Judge Atkins recommended that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be
denied and defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. Judge Atkins advised
the parties that they had fourteen (14) days in which to file objections to the
recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). No party has filed objections, nor sought an
extension of time to do so.
Generally, this Court makes a de novo determination of those portions of a
recommended disposition to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). However,
this Court is not required to “review . . . a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a
de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.” Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Furthermore, parties who fail to object to a Magistrate’s
report and recommendation are barred from appealing a district court’s order adopting that
report and recommendation. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981).
Nevertheless, this Court has examined the record, and having made a de novo
determination, it agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (DE 38).
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (DE 38) is ADOPTED as
and for the opinion of the Court;
2. The motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Rosita Rodriguez and
Robert Simpson (DE 30) is GRANTED;
3. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Rosita Rodriguez and Robert Simpson are
4. Plaintiff Charles Adams’s Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 32) is DENIED.
Dated March 17, 2015.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?