Brim #265869 v. Prison Health Services, Inc. et al

Filing 27

ORDER REJECTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 9 ; Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's motion 3 by 10/6/2010; signed by Judge Gordon J. Quist (Judge Gordon J. Quist, jmt) Modified text on 9/15/2010 (slk).

-TPG Brim #265869 v. Prison Health Services, Inc. et al

Doc. 27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION

MARCUS M. BRIM, Plaintiff, v. PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, et al., Defendants. / Case No. 2:10-CV-64 HON. GORDON J. QUIST

ORDER The Court has before it Petitioner's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's unsigned Report and Recommendation filed on June 9, 2010.1 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has performed de novo consideration of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection has been made. The Court concludes that the report and recommendation should be rejected because the Magistrate Judge did not fully consider Plaintiff's complaint and attached exhibits. In his report and recommendation, the Magistrate Judge states that "Plaintiff's allegations regarding his injury are somewhat vague and conclusory." However, as Plaintiff notes in his Objections, his Complaint and attached exhibits provide sufficient detail regarding Plaintiff's claim. In his Complaint, Plaintiff states that on August 2, 2009, he injured his knee while playing basketball. (Compl. ¶ 9.) This injury "rendered him unable to get in and out of bed and unable to walk well." (Id.) Although

P la in tiff argues that the date on the Report and Recommendation, "February ___, 2005," renders the Report a n d Recommendation null and void. W h ile this date is an error, the Court is more concerned with the substance of the R e p o r t and Recommendation.

1

Dockets.Justia.com

Plaintiff submitted several requests for medical treatment, Plaintiff alleges that those appointments were canceled, he has not seen a doctor since the injury, and he is still in pain. (Id. ¶¶ 11-16.) These allegations show that Plaintiff may have sustained a severe injury and not received any medical treatment. Therefore, the Court will reject the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and remand the case for further consideration. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (docket no. 9) is REJECTED, and this matter is remanded for further consideration consistent with this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff's motion within twenty-one (21) days.

Dated: September 15, 2010

/s/ Gordon J. Quist GORDON J. QUIST UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2