McGinnis v. Huq et al

Filing 72

ORDER Construing 71 Letter as Motion for Extension, Denying 71 Motion, Adopting 68 Report and Recommendation, Granting Defendants' 48 Motion for Summary Judgment, and Dismissing 1 Complaint. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (KWin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
LESLIE MCGINNIS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-cv-13461
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

HUQ, et al,
Defendants.
__________________________________________/
ORDER CONSTRUING LETTER AS MOTION FOR EXTENSION, DENYING
MOTION, ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND DISMISSING
COMPLAINT
On September 23, 2016, Plaintiff Leslie McGinnis filed a complaint asserting deliberate
indifference and excessive force claims against Defendants, staff members at the Wayne County
Jail. ECF No. 1. McGinnis is currently incarcerated and is proceeding pro se. On January 3, 2017,
this case was referred to Magistrate Judge David R. Grand. ECF No. 9. Defendants filed a motion
for summary judgment on December 12, 2017. On April 30, 2018, Judge Grand issued a report
recommending that the motion for summary judgment be granted and the complaint dismissed.
ECF No. 68. On May 21, 2018, the Court received a letter from McGinnis (attached) which was
dated May 16, 2018. In the letter, McGinnis requested a sixty day extension of the deadline to
object to the report and recommendation. He explained that he has “had problems accessing the
library” and computer. ECF No. 70. The Court construed the letter as a request for an extension of
time to object to the report and recommendation and granted it in part. The Court reasoned: “A
thirty day extension will be sufficient for McGinnis to evaluate the report and recommendation
and determine whether any specific and palpable errors are contained within.” Id.

Now, McGinnis has filed another letter seeking an extension of time. ECF No. 71. In the
letter, he indicates that the prison library has delayed in providing him copies of his pleadings,
which McGinnis wishes “to forward to the Court and Defendants.” Id. He requests another
extension of time while he waits for those copies. It is unclear whether the “pleadings” McGinnis
refers to in the present letter are objections or something else. Regardless, McGinnis has not
explained 1) why he could not prepare copies himself or 2) why he could not submit the original
(at the deadline) instead of waiting for copies. Accordingly, the request for an extension will be
denied. The report and recommendation has now been pending for almost two months. The Court’s
review of Judge Grand’s report and recommendation confirms it to be well-reasoned, and
McGinnis has not identified any errors, palpable or otherwise, in the time it has been pending. The
Court has already provided McGinnis one extension of time, and further extensions would unduly
delay the resolution of this action. Accordingly, the request for a second extension will be denied.
Although the Magistrate Judge’s report explicitly stated that the parties to this action may
object to and seek review of the recommendation within fourteen days of service of the report,
neither Petitioner nor Respondent filed any objections. The election not to file objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the record.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The failure to file objections to the report and
recommendation waives any further right to appeal.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff McGinnis’s June 21, 2018, letter is
CONSTRUED as a motion for an extension of time and DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that the report and recommendation, ECF No. 68, is ADOPTED.
It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 48, is
GRANTED.

-2-

It is further ORDERED that the complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED.

Dated: June 28, 2018

s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge

PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first
class U.S. mail on June 28, 2018.
s/Kelly Winslow
KELLY WINSLOW, Case Manager

-3-