Richardson #361621 v. Bauman et al

Filing 130

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 127 , denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment 79 , granting plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel 98 , denying plaintiff's motion for the court to grant judgment 104 , denying plaintiff's motion for an immediate hearing 91 ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
LARRY RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff,
File No. 2:12-CV-435
v.
HON. ROBERT HOLMES BELL
CATHERINE BAUMAN, et al.,
Defendant.
/
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On February 10, 2015, Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be
denied. (ECF No. 127.) This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R
(ECF No. 128). For the reasons established below, this Court will adopt the recommendation
of the Magistrate Judge and will deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The Court
will grant Plaintiff’s motion for an attorney. (ECF No. 98.)
This Court makes a de novo determination of those portions of an R&R to which
specific objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “[A] general
objection to a magistrate’s report, which fails to specify the issues of contention, does not
satisfy the requirement that an objection be filed. The objections must be clear enough to
enable the district court to discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious.” Miller
v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995). The Court may accept, reject, or modify any or

all of the Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendations. Id.
Plaintiff has submitted only general objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report and
renews his request for assistance from an attorney. The Court notes that Defendants have not
filed affidavits or other evidence that respond directly to the merits of Plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment. Nevertheless, upon reviewing the evidence presented in Plaintiff’s
pleadings and affidavits, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown facts supporting each
element of his Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference.
Plaintiff has no constitutional right to a court-appointed attorney in this civil case.
Abdul-Rahman v. Mich. Dep’t of Corr., 65 F.3d 489, 492 (6th Cir. 1995). The Court may,
however, request an attorney to serve as counsel as a privilege that is justified only in
exceptional circumstances. See Lavabo v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 604-05 (6th Cir. 1993).
Defendants have raised several defenses and have filed various objections and motions that
rest on procedural grounds. The Court has carefully considered these facts and determines
that the assistance of counsel appears necessary to the proper presentation of Plaintiff’s
position in this matter.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 128) are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s February 10, 2015, R&R
(ECF No. 127) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF
No. 79) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for an immediate hearing and
judgment against Defendants (ECF No. 91) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for the court to grant judgment
(ECF No. 104) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF No.
98) is GRANTED .

Dated: March 5, 2015

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

3