Williams #252766 v. Smith et al

Filing 24

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 22 ; granting in part and denying as moot in part motion for summary judgment 15 ; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, rmw)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION LAURICE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:17-cv-130 v. HON. JANET T. NEFF WILLIE O. SMITH, et al., Defendants. ____________________________/ ORDER This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation on September 19, 2017, recommending that this Court grant in part and deny as moot in part the motion. 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 (ECF No. 22) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED AS MOOT IN PART. Specifically, the motion for summary judgment asserted by Defendants Smith and Christiansen is denied as moot. With respect to the motions for partial summary judgment asserted by Defendants Maranka, Jansen, and Dozeman, the motion is granted and Plaintiff’s remaining claims against these Defendants are dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies save for Plaintiff’s claims that Defendants Maranka, Jansen, and Dozeman violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to ensure that Plaintiff received the treatment ordered by the Panel Hearing Committee. Dated: October 18, 2017 /s/ Janet T. Neff JANET T. NEFF 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?