Marsh v. Coleman et al

Filing 40

ORDER Adopting 39 Report and Recommendation and Denying 29 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Dr. Coleman. Signed by District Judge Shalina D. Kumar. (THal)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DAVID MARSH,

Plaintiff,

v.
RICKEY COLEMAN et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 21-12476
Honorable Shalina D. Kumar
Magistrate Judge David R. Grand

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 39)
AND DENYING DEFENDANT COLEMAN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 29)
Pro se plaintiff David Marsh (“Marsh”), an incarcerated person, brings
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against defendants
Rickey Coleman, D.O., and Susan McCauley based on their alleged failure
to provide him adequate medical treatment during his incarceration at the
Saginaw Correctional Facility (SRF), in violation of the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendment. ECF No. 1. The case was referred to the
magistrate judge for all pretrial matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
ECF No. 16.
On May 13, 2022, defendant Coleman filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment Based Solely on the Failure to Exhaust Administrative
Page 1 of 2

Remedies. ECF No. 29. Marsh filed a response to this motion on May 20,
2022, and Coleman filed a reply on June 9, 2022. ECF Nos. 33, 34.
On October 31, 2022, the magistrate judge issued a Report and
Recommendation (R&R). ECF No. 39. The R&R recommends that the
Court DENY Coleman’s motion for summary judgment. Id.
No party has filed an objection to the R&R. The failure to object to
conclusions in the magistrate judge’s report releases the Court from its duty
to independently review those issues. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
149 (1985).
The Court has reviewed the record and ADOPTS the R&R as the
findings and conclusions of the Court.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Coleman’s motion for summary judgment (ECF
No. 29) is DENIED.

Dated: November 23, 2022

s/Shalina D. Kumar
SHALINA D. KUMAR
United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2