Stevens #776146 v. Grafos
Filing
118
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 116 ; granting motion to dismiss 104 ; dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff's claims against Defendant John Doe for failure to timely effect service; certifying that an appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, rmw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JAMES STEVENS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:12-cv-90
v.
HON. JANET T. NEFF
MICHAEL GRAFOS, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER
This is a prisoner civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant Spring
filed a Motion to Dismiss (Dkt 104). The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued
a Report and Recommendation on August 6, 2015, recommending that this Court grant Defendant
Spring’s motion. The Magistrate Judge also recommended that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant
John Doe be dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely effect service. The Report and
Recommendation was duly served on the parties. No objections have been filed. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Dkt 116) is
APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Spring’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt 104) is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant John Doe are
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to timely effect service.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)
that an appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114
F.3d 601, 610 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 206, 21112 (2007).
Dated: August 31, 2015
/s/ Janet T. Neff
JANET T. NEFF
United States District Judge
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?