Catanzaro v. Carr et al

Filing 96

ORDER granting 32 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part 34 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 35 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 36 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 45 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting 71 Report and Recommendation ; adopting 76 Report and Recommendation ; adopting 81 Report and Recommendation ; adopting 83 Report and Recommendation. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CHem)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MATTHEW CATANZARO,
Case No. 10-14554
Plaintiff,
Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds
v.
CARR, ET AL.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS [71, 76, 81, 83]

This matter has come before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s four separate
Reports and Recommendations [71, 76, 81, 83]. Being fully advised in the premises and
having reviewed the record and the pleadings, including the Reports and
Recommendations [“R&Rs], Plaintiff’s objections to R&Rs # 76, 81, and 83, and
Defendants’ objections to R&R # 81, the Court hereby ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS the
Magistrate Judge’s Reports and Recommendations [71, 76, 81, 83].
It is further ordered that:
As to R&R # 71, Defendant Marble’s partial motion to dismiss [32] is GRANTED, and
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Marble for retaliation and deliberate indifference relative
to medical treatment for Plaintiff’s irritable bowel syndrome are DISMISSED.
As to R&R # 76, Defendant Petty’s motion for summary judgment [36] is GRANTED
and the claims asserted against him DISMISSED, all claims against Defendant Henney are

DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and Plaintiff’s cross motion for summary
judgment [45] as to Defendants Petty and Henney is DENIED.
As to R&R # 81, Defendants Carr’s, Souza’s, Suarez’s, King’s and DeBoer’s motion
for partial summary judgment [35] is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s cross motion for summary
judgment [45] as to these Defendants is DENIED. Defendant Tobias’s motion for partial
summary judgment [65] is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment
as to Defendant Tobias [69] is DENIED.
As to R&R # 83, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [34] is GRANTED as to
Defendants Czachowrski, Hull, Brauer, Ludwick, and Olson and GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART as to Defendants Adams and Pavlo. The only claim remaining against
Defendants Adams and Pavlo is Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection/class
of one claim. Plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment [45] as to the Defendants
addressed in R&R # 83 is DENIED.
Considering the Court’s Acceptance and Adoption of R&Rs 71, 76, 81, and 83, the
following claims remain:
1. Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection/class of one claim against
Defendants Adams and Pavlo;
2. Plaintiff’s Equal Protection claims against Defendants Carr, Souza, Suarez, King,
DeBoer, and Tobias; and
3. Plaintiff’s retaliation and deliberate indifference claims relative to medical treatment
for Plaintiff’s bladder condition asserted against Defendant Marble.
SO ORDERED.

2

s/Nancy G. Edmunds
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge
Dated: October 20, 2011
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
on October 20, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Carol A. Hemeyer
Case Manager

3