White v. Jindal et al

Filing 101

Order Adopting 98 Report and Recommendation and Denying Without Prejudice Plaintiff's 82 Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Plaintiff's 94 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARK WHITE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 13-15073

ROSLYN JINDAL, et al.,

HONORABLE AVERN COHN

Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER
ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 98)
AND
DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (Doc. 82)
AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (Doc. 94)
I.
This is a prisoner civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is currently
proceeding pro se1 and the matter has been referred to a magistrate judge for all pretrial
proceedings. (Doc. 12). Following motion practice by plaintiff and defendants, plaintiff’s
claims are against persons with the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC)
claiming a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. See Doc. 73.
Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 82) and a motion for
judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 94), essentially seeking a judgment in his favor that
defendants have violated hi rights. Defendants filed a response to both, contending that
1

Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel was recently granted. See Doc.
97. However, counsel has not yet been appointed for plantiff.

summary judgment is premature as no discovery has taken place and that plaintiff’s
motion for judgment on the pleadings is otherwise improper. (Docs. 89, 95).
On February 7, 2015, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation
(MJRR), recommending that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied without
prejudice and plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied. (Doc. 98).
II.
Neither party has filed objections to the MJRR and the time for filing objections
has passed. The failure to file objections to the report and recommendation waives any
further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d
1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the magistrate judge's
report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the motions. Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The Court has reviewed the MJRR and agrees with the
magistrate judge’s recommendations.
III.
Accordingly, the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are ADOPTED
as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

S/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: February 27, 2015
2

13-15073 Mark White v. Roslyn Jindal, et al.
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of
record on this date, February 27, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Sakne Chami
Case Manager, [phone]

3