Matthews #242722 v. McQuiggin et al

Filing 38

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 37 granting motion 11 ; signed by Judge R. Allan Edgar (Judge R. Allan Edgar, cam)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
WILLIAM H. MATTHEWS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:10-cv-145
HON. R. ALLAN EDGAR

GREGG MCQUIGGIN,
JOHN BOYNTON,
PAUL HOOTEN, and
MELODY CHAPIN,
Defendants.
____________________________________/

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff William H. Matthews, a Michigan state prisoner in the custody of the Michigan
Department of Corrections, brings this federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
defendants Greg McQuiggin, John Boynton, Paul Hooten, and Melody Chapin. On September 28,
2010, the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against defendants Greg McQuiggin and John
Boynton. [Court Doc. No. 7].
Defendant Paul Hooten moves for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. [Court
Doc. No. 11]. On August 29, 2011, Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley submitted his report and
recommendation. [Court Doc. No. 37]. The Magistrate Judge recommends that defendant Hooten’s
the motion for summary judgment be granted. Because the plaintiff’s claims against defendant
Melody Chapin are the same as the plaintiff’s claims against defendant Paul Hooten, it is further
recommended that summary judgment be granted sua sponte in favor of defendant Melody Chapin.
In sum, it is recommended that this civil action be dismissed in its entirety.
The parties have not timely filed any objections to the report and recommendation. After
1

reviewing the record, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the report and recommendation pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), and W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). The motion by
defendant Paul Hooten for summary judgment [Court Doc. No.11] is GRANTED. Summary
judgment is GRANTED sua sponte in favor of defendant Melody Chapin. The plaintiff’s entire
complaint shall be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to all claims against all defendants.
For the reasons expressed in the report and recommendation, the Court finds that any appeal
by plaintiff Matthews from the decision and judgment in this case would be frivolous and not taken
in good faith. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F. 3d 601, 611 (6th Cir. 1997). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3) and Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4)(B), the Court CERTIFIES that any appeal by plaintiff
Matthews from the judgment of this District Court would not be taken in good faith.
In the event that plaintiff Matthews takes an appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, this
Court shall assess and require him to pay the $455 appellate filing fee pursuant to § 1915(b)(1), see
McGore, 114 F.3d at 610-11, unless he is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis by the “three
strikes” rule in 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). If the plaintiff is barred by the “three strikes” rule in 28 U.S.C.
1915(g), then he shall be required to pay the $455 appellate filing fee in one lump sum.
A separate judgment will be entered.
SO ORDERED
Dated: September 20, 2011.

/s/ R. Allan Edgar
R. ALLAN EDGAR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2