George v. Rector et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: IT IS ORDERED: 1. that the Magistrate Judge's 43 Report and Recommendations is ACEPTED and ADOPTED as the Court's decision; 2. that Defendant's 38 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; 3. that this action shall count as a "strike" for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 4/9/2018.(KM)cc: COR, Pltf via U.S. mail
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION AT LEXINGTON
JAMES EDWARD GEORGE, JR.,
JOHN RECTOR, et al.,
Civil Action No.
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge [DE 43], which was referred
to the Magistrate Judge for all pretrial proceedings, including a
Report and Recommendation on any dispositive motions.
has filed no objections.
In his Amended Complaint [DE 10], Plaintiff claims that
Defendants are liable to him under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for various
violations of his constitutional rights arising out of strip
searches, a series of disciplinary write-ups, a patdown search, a
phone conversation, and an erroneous visitation restriction.
a variety of reasons articulated in the Report and Recommendation,
the Magistrate Judge recommends that each claim be dismissed.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, a party may
object to and seek review of a magistrate judge's report and
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
If objections are
made, “[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the
magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected
to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Objections must be stated with
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 151 (1985) (citation
omitted). “Only those specific objections to the magistrate's
report made to the district court will be preserved for appellate
Carson v. Hudson, 421 F. App'x 560, 563 (6th Cir. 2011)
(quoting Souter v. Jones, 395 F.3d 577, 585–86 (6th Cir. 2005)).
Here, Plaintiff has filed no objection to the Magistrate
Judgment [DE 38] be granted, that all claims against Defendants be
dismissed, and that this action count as a “strike” for the
purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Generally, Aa judge of the court
shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report
or specified proposed findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.@ 28 U.S.C. ' 636.
However, when the petitioner
fails to file any objections to the Recommended Disposition, as in
the case sub judice, A[i]t does not appear that Congress intended
to require district court review of a magistrate=s factual or legal
conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard.@
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).
Further, the Court concludes that
the recommended disposition is well supported by the facts and law
cited by the magistrate judge.
Consequently, this Court adopts
the well-articulated and detailed reasoning set forth in the Report
and Recommendation as its own.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
that the Magistrate Judge=s Report and Recommendation [DE
43] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the Court’s decision;
that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 38] is
that this action shall count as a “strike” for the
purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
This is the 9th day of April, 2018.
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?