Bemer v. Correctional Medical Services Inc. et al

Filing 74

ORDER Adopting 67 Report and Recommendation - Granting 45 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by M Wolcott,and Granting 17 Motion to Dismiss filed by K. Nimr Ikram Signed by District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III. (CCoh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

JEFF BEMER,
Case No. 10-cv-12228
Plaintiff,
HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
v.
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES
INC., et al.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
(docket no. 67) ON MOTION TO DISMISS AND / OR
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DEFENDANTS
IKRAM (docket no. 17) AND WOLCOTT (docket no. 45).
Jeff Bemer broke his foot while playing baseball in the prison yard at the Southern
Michigan Correctional Facility in Jackson, Michigan, on or about June 7, 2007. He alleges
that the foot was improperly treated by the prison officials tasked with his well-being during
his incarceration. He has brought this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate
indifference to his medical needs under the Eighth Amendment, as well as a state-law tort
claim of gross negligence, against the organizations responsible for conducting health
services for prisoners in Michigan and the various medical staff that attended to his injury.
The case has been referred to a magistrate judge for all pretrial proceedings. Two of the
individuals named in the suit — Melva Wolcott, a nurse practitioner, and K. Nimir Ikram, a
doctor — moved for either dismissal of the complaint as against them, or for summary
judgment. The magistrate judge has recommended that the motions be granted. Bemer
has not objected to the recommendation.
Review of a magistrate judge's recommendations on dispositive motions is governed
by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The district judge who referred the motion is only required to

perform a de novo review of the magistrate judge’s findings if the parties “serve and file
specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(2). Since Bemer did not file objections to the Report, the Court is under no
obligation to perform de novo review. Nevertheless, because a district judge always retains
jurisdiction over a motion after referring it to a magistrate judge, the district judge is entitled
to review a magistrate judge's recommendation on his own initiative. See Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 154 (1985) (clarifying that while a district court judge need not review a
report and recommendation “de novo if no objections are filed, it does not preclude further
review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any
other standard”); Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3rd Cir. 1987) ("[T]he better
practice is for the district judge to afford some level of review to dispositive legal issued
raised by the report," even if this is not strictly required by statute in the absence of
objections).
The Court has reviewed the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, and
finds that its reasoning and conclusions are sound. Therefore, it will grant Ikram and
Wolcott's motions, and dismiss them from this case.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (docket
no. 67) is ADOPTED, and the motions to dismiss and / or for summary judgment of Ikram
(docket no. 17) and Wolcott (docket no. 45) are GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.

2

s/Stephen J. Murphy, III
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
United States District Judge
Dated: May 6, 2011
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or
counsel of record on May 6, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
Carol Cohron
Case Manager

3