Taylor v. Department of Corrections et al

Filing 19

ORDER granting 11 Motion for Summary Judgment; finding as moot 16 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; adopting 17 Report and Recommendation. Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHARLES TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 14-CV-11585
Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

RUSSELL SAVOIE and
NICHOLAS SANFORD,
Defendants.
_________________________/
ORDER (1) ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION, (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT, (3) DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, and (4) DISMISSING
COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Proceeding pro se, Plaintiff Charles Taylor, a Michigan Department of
Corrections (MDOC) prisoner, filed this civil rights lawsuit in the Western District
of Michigan on February 25, 2014. The case was subsequently transferred to this
Court. The remaining Defendants are Russell Savoie and Nicholas Sanford, both
of whom are MDOC unit officers. The Court referred all pretrial matters to
Magistrate Judge Michael Hluchaniuk.
On August 1, 2014, Defendants Savoir and Sanford filed a motion for
summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that the complaint should be
dismissed because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. On April

17, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request for appointment of counsel. On April 23, 2015,
the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R), recommending
that the Court grant summary judgment in favor of Defendants Savoir and Sanford
and dismiss the complaint without prejudice on the ground that Plaintiff failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies. At the conclusion of the R&R, Magistrate
Judge Hluchaniuk advised the parties that they may object and seek review of the
R&R within fourteen days, and that “[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes
a waiver of any further right of appeal.” R&R at 14 (ECF No. 17). Plaintiff has
not filed objections to the R&R and the time to do so has expired.1
The Court has carefully reviewed the R&R and concurs with the conclusions
reached by the Magistrate Judge.

The Court therefore adopts the R&R.

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the R&R is ADOPTED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment of
Defendants Savoir and Sanford is GRANTED;

1

On May 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed a paper addressed to Magistrate Judge
Hluchaniuk stating that Plaintiff “is requesting that this case be sent to a jury for
judgment,” but containing no argument as to why the Magistrate Judge’s R&R is
erroneous. ECF No. 18. To the extent this paper constitutes an objection, the
Court overrules it. See Cowherd v. Million, 380 F.3d 909, 912 (6th Cir. 2004)
(“[T]he failure to file specific objections to a magistrate’s report constitutes a
waiver of those objections.”).
2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for appointment of
counsel is DENIED AS MOOT;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Dated: May 18, 2015

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:
Charles Taylor
Kevin R. Himebaugh, Esq.

3