Walls v. O'Connor et al

Filing 31

ORDER Adopting 30 Report and Recommendation and Granting 9 Motion to Dismiss, filed by Richard Dase. Signed by District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III. (CCoh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DANIEL L. WALLS,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 12-CV-11874

v.

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

LYNETT O'CONNOR, RICHARD DASE,
and CORIZON INSURANCE,
Defendants.
/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (docket no. 30) AND
GRANTING DEFENDANT RICHARD DASE'S MOTION TO DISMISS (docket no. 9)
This is a prisoner civil rights action. Plaintiff Daniel Walls is a former inmate of the
Parnell Correctional Facility, who alleges that he was denied adequate medical care there.
On June 14, 2012, Defendant Richard Dase filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 9. The
Court referred the motion to a Magistrate Judge. On January 22, 2013, the Magistrate
Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report"). ECF No. 30. In his Report, the
Magistrate Judge concluded that the Court should grant Dase's motion to dismiss. The
Magistrate Judge found that Walls' grievances during the administrative remedy process
did not name or otherwise mention Dase specifically, despite Walls' clear allegations
against Dase in the complaint filed in this action. The Magistrate Judge concluded the lack
of allegations against Dase at the grievance stages meant Walls had not exhausted his
administrative remedies against Dase as required by the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act,
and therefore the complaint against Dase should be dismissed. Report at 13-14.
Civil Rule 72(b) governs review of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
De novo review of the magistrate judge’s findings is only required if the parties “serve and
file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 72(b)(2). Nevertheless, because a district judge always retains jurisdiction over a motion
after referring it to a magistrate judge, the judge is entitled to review the magistrate judge's
findings of fact and conclusions of law 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”).
Because neither party filed objections to the Report, de novo review of the Report's
conclusions is not required. Having reviewed the Report's analysis, in light of the record,
the Court finds that its conclusions are factually based and legally sound. Accordingly, it
will adopt the Report's findings and deny the motion for class certification.
ORDER
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (docket
no. 30) is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Richard Dase's Motion to Dismiss (docket
no. 9) is GRANTED. Defendant Richard Dase is DISMISSED from this action.
SO ORDERED.

s/Stephen J. Murphy, III
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
United States District Judge
Dated: February 13, 2013
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or
counsel of record on February 13, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
Carol Cohron
Case Manager
2