Beeman #227048 v. Heyns et al

Filing 37

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 34 re 21 , 18 : MDOC Defendants' Motion 18 for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; Defendant Davenport's Motion 21 for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; signed by Judge Gordon J. Quist (Judge Gordon J. Quist, jmt)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION GALE BEEMAN #227048, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:16-CV-27 v. HON. GORDON J. QUIST DANIEL HEYNS, et al., Defendants. / ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On February 28, 2017, Magistrate Judge Carmody issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part the MDOC Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust and grant Defendant Davenport’s motion for summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust. The Report and Recommendation was duly served on the parties on February 28, 2017. No objections have been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the February 28, 2017, Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 34) is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the MDOC Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Plaintiff’s Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is denied with regard to Plaintiff’s legal mail claim against Defendant Bengelink and Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against Defendant Thomas and granted as to all other claims, which are dismissed without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Davenport’s Motion For Summary Judgment Based on Plaintiff’s Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Davenport are dismissed without prejudice. Dated: March 17, 2017 /s/ Gordon J. Quist GORDON J. QUIST UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?