Gordon v. Collins et al

Filing 71

ORDER Adopting 64 Report and Recommendation for 52 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by G. Collins, Robert Mulvaney, Signed by District Judge Arthur J Tarnow. (DSmi)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DEONTAE GORDON #308075, Plaintiff, v. GARY COLLINS, ET AL., Defendants. ______________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [64] and DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [52] Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation Denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [52] of November 5, 2010. Defendants filed an Objection [67]. Plaintiff filed a Response [68]. I. STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) governs this dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Pursuant to that rule, "[t]he district judge in the case must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." Id. at 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C) (2006). II. ANALYSIS After a de novo review of the matter, the Court finds the analysis in the Report and Recommendation to be correct. Defendants' objections do not persuade the Court otherwise. Defendants object to the Magistrate Judge's finding that Plaintiff's First Amendment claim may go forward, even though he has not alleged or suffered a physical injury. Defs.' Obj. at 2. Defendants concede that "there are cases which run counter to their position," yet 1 HONORABLE VIRGINIA M. MORGAN MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case No. 08-12989 HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Defendants restate arguments that Judge Morgan found unpersuasive. Id. Defendants also object to the Magistrate Judge's ruling that Plaintiff has set forth an issue of fact as to his retaliation claim. Id. at 3. Again, Defendants simply restate the arguments that Judge Morgan found unpersuasive. The Court finds the arguments similarly unpersuasive and adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation as its own. III. CONCLUSION The Court has reviewed the record and being fully advised in the premises, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [64] of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED and is entered as the findings of the Court. Defendants' Objection [67] to the Report and Recommendation is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [52] is DENIED. SO ORDERED. S/ARTHUR J. TARNOW Arthur J. Tarnow Senior United States District Judge Dated: December 29, 2010 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on December 29, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. S/LISA M. WARE Case Manager 2

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?