Owusu v. Michigan Department of Corrections Pain Management Committee et al
Filing
147
ORDER Adopting 138 Report and Recommendation. Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (SBur)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Nathaniel K. Owusu,
a.k.a. Nathaniel Porter,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 16-cv-12490
v.
Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge
Michigan Department of
Corrections Pain Management
Committee, et al.,
Mag. Judge Mona K. Majzoub
Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [138]
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Majzoub’s Report and
Recommendation recommending the Court (1) deny Defendants Corizon
Health, Inc., Wilson, Papendick, Buller, Grahn, Paquette, Millette,
Hutchinson, and Johnson (the “Corizon Defendants”) Motion for
Discovery Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Court Order (Dkt. 109),
(2) deny as moot Plaintiff’s Motion for Enlargement of Time in Which to
Reply to Defendant Corizon’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike
(Dkt. 120), and (3) deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions Against
Defendant Corizon for Failure to Serve Motion Papers Upon Plaintiff in
1
a Timely Manner and Abrogating His Opportunity to Respond/Reply
(Dkt. 120). The parties were required to file specific written objections
within 14 days of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); E.D. Mich. L.R. 72.1(d).
Plaintiff filed a paper (Dkt. 145), which indicates he has already
complied with the September 7, 2017 Order in Plaintiff’s Motion for
Sanctions (Dkt. 109) by mailing defendants his discovery responses. (Dkt.
145 at 4.) Defendants wrote back to plaintiff, requesting that he sign a
new authorization for release of medical records. (Id.) Plaintiff claims he
mailed the requested authorization to defendants on or about December
12, 2017. (Id. at 2.) If this is the case, then defendants were obligated to
notify the Court and withdraw their motion, which they did not do.
The Court has nevertheless carefully reviewed the Report and
Recommendation, and concurs in the reasoning and result. Accordingly,
The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 138) is ADOPTED;
The Corizon Defendants’ Motion for Discovery Sanctions for Failure
to Comply with Court Order (Dkt. 109) is DENIED;
Plaintiff’s Motion for Enlargement of Time in Which to Reply to
Defendant Corizon’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Dkt. 120) is
DENIED as MOOT; and
2
Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions Against Defendant Corizon for
Failure to Serve Motion Papers Upon Plaintiff in a Timely Manner and
Abrogating His Opportunity to Respond/Reply (Dkt. 120) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 29, 2018
Ann Arbor, Michigan
s/Judith E. Levy
JUDITH E. LEVY
United States District Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s
ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on August 29, 2018.
s/Shawna Burns
SHAWNA BURNS
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?