Sedore #210661 v. MacLaren

Filing 35

OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 23 ; Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 10 is DENIED; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SCOTT SEDORE,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:17-cv-7
v.
HON. JANET T. NEFF
DUNCAN MACLAREN,
Defendant.

____________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a prisoner civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 involving claims
that Defendant, Duncan Maclaren, failed to properly accommodate Plaintiff’s medical disability
in violation of the Eighth Amendment and the Americans with Disability Act (ECF No. 1).
Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff failed to exhaust all
available administrative remedies. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a
Report and Recommendation (R&R), recommending that Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment on the issue of exhaustion be denied. The matter is presently before the Court on
Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has performed de novo consideration of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. The Court
denies the objections and issues this Opinion and Order.
Plaintiff raises four objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation,
despite the fact that the Magistrate Judge found that Defendant failed to meet his summary
judgment burden, i.e., a finding that favors Plaintiff (Pl. Obj., ECF No. 26 at PageID.423-26; R&R,

ECF No. 23 at PageID.417). An objection to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
must “specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations, or report to
which objections are made and the basis for such objections.” W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). The
undersigned’s review is limited to these “portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which [an] objection is made.” Id. Plaintiff’s objections, which merely
reiterate the arguments he made in response to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF
No. 14), do not specifically identify any portions of the Report and Recommendation. Thus,
Plaintiff has not offered any reviewable objections to the Magistrate’s Report and
Recommendation.
Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the
Opinion of this Court. Because this action was filed in forma pauperis, this Court certifies,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal of this decision would not be taken in good
faith. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other
grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 206, 211-12 (2007). Therefore:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF No. 26) are DENIED and the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 23) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
10) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)
that an appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith.
/s/ Janet T. Neff

Dated: September 11, 2018

JANET T. NEFF
United States District Judge
2