George v. Rector et al

Filing 44

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.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN RECTOR, et al.,
Defendant.

**
This

matter

is

**
before

Civil Action No.
5:17-cv-00013-JMH-HAI
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

**

**

**

the

Court

upon

the

Report

and

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.

Plaintiff

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.

For

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
recommendation.

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
specificity.

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
review.”

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
Judge’s

recommendation

that

Defendants’

Motion

for

Summary

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).

Thomas v.

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:
(1)

that the Magistrate Judge=s Report and Recommendation [DE

43] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the Court’s decision;
(2)

that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 38] is

GRANTED;
(3)

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.