Garland #148184 v. Smigielski et al

Filing 46

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 45 , granting defendants' motions for summary judgment 26 and 28 ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DONALD HOWARD GARLAND, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:14-cv-865 HON. ROBERT HOLMES BELL WES SMIGIELSKI, et al., Defendants. ____________________________________/ ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On August 26, 2015, Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Green issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 45) recommending that Defendants’ motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 26, 28) be granted on all of Plaintiff’s remaining claims. No objections have been filed, and the deadline for doing so has expired. The Court has reviewed the matter and concludes that the R&R correctly analyzes the issues and makes a sound recommendation. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s August 10, 2015, R&R (ECF No. 45) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all claims that Plaintiff purports to bring on behalf of others are DISMISSED because he is proceeding pro se and cannot act in a representative capacity. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claim against the Benton Harbor Police Department is DISMISSED with prejudice because the Department is not a legal entity capable of being sued. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 26, 28) are GRANTED on all of Plaintiff’s remaining claims. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. A judgment will be entered that is consistent with this order. Dated: September 15, 2015 /s/ Robert Holmes Bell ROBERT HOLMES BELL 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?