Doss v. Corizon Medical Corporation
Filing
50
OPINION and ORDER (1) Adopting Magistrate Judge's 44 Report and Recommendation; (2) Granting Defendants Corizon Health, Inc.'s and Donald Haiderer, D.O.'s 37 Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies; and (3) Denying as Moot Plaintiff's 49 Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)
Case 4:18-cv-11930-LVP-EAS ECF No. 50 filed 10/27/20
PageID.289
Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CLARY DOSS,
Plaintiff,
Civil Case No. 18-11930
Honorable Linda V. Parker
v.
CORIZON MEDICAL
CORPORATION and DONALD
HAIDERER,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S AUGUST 26,
2020 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 44]; (2) GRANTING
DEFENDANTS CORIZON HEALTH, INC.’S AND DONALD HAIDERER, D.O.’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES [ECF NO. 37]; AND (3) DENYING AS MOOT
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS
[ECF NO. 49]
Plaintiff Clary Doss—a state prisoner at the Chippewa Correctional Facility in
Kincheloe, Michigan—filed this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Corizon
Medical Corporation and Dr. Donald Haiderer, alleging that Defendants violated his
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by failing to remove the cataract from his right
eye, which caused “unnecessary pain and suffering, including partial blindness for
several years.” (ECF No. 32 at Pg. ID 109.) Defendants subsequently moved for
summary judgment. (ECF No. 37.) The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge
Elizabeth A. Stafford for all pretrial proceedings, including a hearing and determination
Case 4:18-cv-11930-LVP-EAS ECF No. 50 filed 10/27/20
PageID.290
Page 2 of 3
of all non-dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and/or a report and
recommendation (“R&R”) on all dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B). (ECF No. 39.)
On August 26, 2020, Magistrate Judge Stafford issued a R&R, recommending that
the Court grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 44.) In the R&R,
Magistrate Judge Stafford concluded that Plaintiff failed to exhaust all available
administrative remedies and his failure to do so could not be excused. (See id. at Pg. ID
276.)
At the conclusion of the R&R, Magistrate Judge Stafford informed the parties that
they must file any objections to the R&R within 14 days. (Id.) She further advised that,
“[i]f a party fails to timely file specific objections, any further appeal is waived.” (Id.
(citing Howard v. Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991).) On September 9,
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections. (ECF No. 45.) The
Court granted Plaintiff’s motion and ordered objections to be filed by October 13. (ECF
No. 46.) On September 28, Plaintiff requested an additional extension. (ECF No. 47.)
The Court granted Plaintiff’s request, ordered objections to be filed by October 23, and
noted that no further extensions would be granted. (ECF No. 48.) Plaintiff did not file
objections, and the time to do so has expired.
The Court reviewed the August 26, 2020 R&R and concurs with the conclusions
reached by Magistrate Judge Stafford. The Court therefore (i) ADOPTS the R&R (ECF
2
Case 4:18-cv-11930-LVP-EAS ECF No. 50 filed 10/27/20
PageID.291
Page 3 of 3
No. 44); (ii) GRANTS Defendants Corizon Health, Inc.’s & Donald Haiderer, D.O.’s
Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies (ECF
No. 37); and (iii) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections
(ECF No. 49) as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: October 27, 2020
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
and/or pro se parties on this date, October 27, 2020, by electronic and/or U.S. First
Class mail.
s/ R. Loury
Case Manager
3
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?