Nolen #273394 v. Luoma et al

Filing 266

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 263 . Defendant Tom Lindberg's motion for summary judgment 249 is GRANTED. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant Tom Lindberg. Plaintiff's claims agains t the remaining defendants in this matter, Defendants Unknown Minirich, Unknown Schnider, D. Velmer, Jim LaChance, R. Wickstrom, Thomas Recker, Unknown Aho, and Unknown Bouchard, are DISMISSED for failure to serve. The Court CERTIFIES that an appeal of this action would not be taken in good faith ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN N O R T H E R N DIVISION

A R L A N D U S M. NOLEN, P l a in tif f , F ile No. 2:06-cv-125 v. H O N . ROBERT HOLMES BELL T IM O T H Y LUOMA, et al., D e f e n d a n ts . / M E M O R A N D U M OPINION AND ORDER A D O P T I N G THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION T h is is a prisoner civil rights action filed by Plaintiff Arlandus Nolen pursuant to 42 U .S .C . § 1983. Plaintiff's complaint asserted claims against approximately fifty different p ris o n officials. Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") issued by U n ite d States Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley recommending that the Court grant s u m m a ry judgment in favor of Defendant Tom Lindberg and dismiss the claims against the re m a in in g Defendants in this matter. (Dkt. No. 263.) Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R o n January 6, 2010. (Dkt. No. 264.) For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's objections are d e n ied and the R&R is adopted as the opinion of the Court. T h is Court is required to conduct a de novo review with respect to those portions of a R&R to which specific objections are made, and may accept, reject, or modify any or all o f the Magistrate Judge's findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ.

P . 72(b). The R&R determined that Defendant Lindberg's motion should be granted because th e complaint did not assert any factual allegations against Defendant Lindberg. On de novo r e v ie w , the Court agrees with that determination. The Court also notes that, in his response to the motion for summary judgment, Defendant did not offer any evidence or affidavits that w o u ld suffice to create a genuine issue of material fact. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2). The C o u rt will, therefore, grant judgment in Defendant Lindberg's favor. Finally, the R&R recommended dismissal of the claims against the remaining D e f e n d a n ts for failure to serve. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The R&R gave Plaintiff notice of t h e pending dismissal and he has not objected or otherwise responded. The Court will, th e re f o re , dismiss Plaintiff's remaining claims. Accordingly, I T IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's objections to the R&R (Dkt. No. 264) a re DENIED. I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that the R&R (Dkt. No. 263), combined with the o p in i o n herein, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Tom Lindberg's motion for summary ju d g m e n t (Dkt. No. 249) is GRANTED. The Court enters JUDGMENT in favor of Tom L in d b e rg . I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims against the remaining D ef en d an ts in this matter, Defendants Unknown Minirich, Unknown Schnider, D. Velmer,

2

Jim LaChance, R. Wickstrom, Thomas Recker, Unknown Aho, and Unknown Bouchard, are D I S M I S S E D for failure to serve. T h e Court hereby CERTIFIES that an appeal of this action would not be taken in g o o d faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). A judgment will be entered that is consistent with this memorandum opinion and o rde r.

Dated: March 10, 2010

/s/ Robert Holmes Bell ROBERT HOLMES BELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3