Beeman #227048 v. Heyns et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
GALE BEEMAN #227048,
Case No. 1:16-CV-27
HON. GORDON J. QUIST
DANIEL HEYNS, et al.,
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
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?