Heard v. Strange et al
Filing
35
ORDER Adopting 33 Report and Recommendation and Denying 23 Motion for Summary Judgment - Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (LBar)
Case 2:21-cv-10237-NGE-PTM ECF No. 35, PageID.276 Filed 04/19/22 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LAMONT HEARD,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 21-10237
v.
Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds
YARNICE STRANGE,
JEFFREY OOSTERHOF,
ADAM DOUGLAS, and
CHRISTIAN ALCORN,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
MARCH 22, 2022 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [33]
This is a pro se prisoner civil rights lawsuit filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Plaintiff
Lamont Heard bringing First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants. (ECF
No. 11.) The case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris for all pretrial matters. (ECF No. 15.) Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s March 22, 2022
report and recommendation to deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF No.
33.) No party has filed objections to the report and recommendation. “[T]he failure to
object to the magistrate judge’s report[] releases the Court from its duty to independently
review the matter.” See Hall v. Rawal, No. 09-10933, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120541, at
*2 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 24, 2012) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)).
Nonetheless, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. The Court,
therefore, ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS the report and recommendation (ECF No. 33).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 23) is DENIED.
1
Case 2:21-cv-10237-NGE-PTM ECF No. 35, PageID.277 Filed 04/19/22 Page 2 of 2
SO ORDERED.
s/Nancy G. Edmunds
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge
Dated: April 19, 2022
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
on April 19, 2022, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Bartlett
Case Manager
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?