Opinion
Civil Action 2:14-cv-248
04-04-2014
LEONARD JENKINS, Plaintiff, v. GARY C. MOHR, et al., Defendants.
Judge Frost
Magistrate Judge King
ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, a paraplegic state prisoner, brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming a denial of needed medical equipment, denial of an "Impartial Administrative Tribunal during the Grievance Process," Complaint, ECF 1, PAGEID # 11, and denial of adequate wound care by specialists. This matter is now before the Court for the initial screen of the Complaint required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e), 1915A.
Having reviewed the Complaint, the Court concludes that, at this juncture, plaintiff's claims of denial of needed medical equipment and denial of adequate wound care by specialists may proceed. Because prisoners have no constitutional right to an adequate grievance procedure, Walker v. Michigan Dept. Of Corrections, 128 Fed. Appx. 441, 2005 WL 742743, **3 (6th Cir. April 1, 2005)(the due process clause does not confer upon prison inmates a right to an effective prison grievance procedure); see also Overholt v. Unibase Data Entry, Inc., 221 F.3d 1335, *3 (6th Cir. 2000), it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's claim based on the alleged inadequate "Administrative Tribunal" and "Grievance Process" be dismissed. Because plaintiff's claims against defendants Mary Lawrence and Mona Parks are based only on their resolution of plaintiff's grievances, see Complaint, ¶ 140, PAGEID # 18, it is FUTHER RECOMMENDED that defendants Lawrence and Parks be dismissed from the action.
If plaintiff submits a completed summons, Marshals service form and copy of the Complaint for each defendant, the United States Marshals Service will be DIRECTED to serve each defendant by certified mail. Each defendant may have forty-five (45) days after service of process to respond to the Complaint.
Plaintiff is ADVISED that the claims against any defendant not served with process within 120 days of the filing of the Complaint may be dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Response to objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers, Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
__________
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge