McDaniel v. Bechard et al
ORDER Adopting 35 Report and Recommendation. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (AChu)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 15-13892
T. BECHARD and P. STEELE,
HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
HON. DAVID R. GRAND
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DKT. 35)
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge David R. Grand’s
August 2, 2017 Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 35), recommending that
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 24) be
The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
The law provides that either party may serve and file written objections “[w]ithin
fourteen days after being served with a copy” of a report and recommendation.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court will make a “de novo determination of those
portions of the report . . . to which objection is made.” Id. Where, as here, neither
party objects to the report, the district court is not obligated to independently
review the record. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985). The Court will
therefore accept the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation of August 2, 2017 as
this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Grand’s Report
and Recommendation of August 2, 2017 is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary
Judgment is GRANTED and that Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE except for his Eighth Amendment claim for alleged denial of food,
which is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Dated: August 25, 2017
s/Terrence G. Berg
TERRENCE G. BERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on August 25,
2017, using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification to all parties.
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?