Lozada #369951 v. Chang

Filing 32

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 25 and GRANTS 21 ; signed by District Judge Paul L. Maloney (Judge Paul L. Maloney, cmc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
JOEL LOZADA, #369951,
Plaintiff,
-vERIC CHANG,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:23-cv-11
Honorable Paul L. Maloney

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Joel Lozada, a prisoner in the custody of the Michigan Department of
Corrections, alleges an Eighth Amendment violation against Defendant Eric Chang.
Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 21). The Magistrate Judge
reviewed the motion and issued a report recommending the Court grant Defendant’s motion
(ECF No. 25). Plaintiff filed objections (ECF No. 30). The Court will adopt the report and
recommendation and will grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
After being served with a report and recommendation (R&R) issued by a magistrate
judge, a party has fourteen days to file written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A district court judge
reviews de novo the portions of the R&R to which objections have been filed. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Only those objections that are specific are entitled to a
de novo review under the statute. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (per
curiam).

The Magistrate Judge provided a succinct summary of the facts giving rise to Plaintiff’s
claim, including Plaintiff’s medical records. The Magistrate Judge then summarized the legal
elements of an Eighth Amendment cause of action. The Magistrate Judge explained why
the facts did not support either the objective or the subjective component of an Eighth
Amendment claim.
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections do not specifically address any particular
finding of fact or conclusion of law.

Rather than addressing specific findings or

recommendations, Plaintiff summarizes the factual bases for his claim. The lack of specificity
constitutes a waiver; the Court need not conduct a de novo review.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS as its opinion the Report and Recommendation
(ECF No. 25). The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No.
21). IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date:

May 9, 2024

/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge

2