Figel v. Overton

Full title: GREGORY A. FIGEL, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM OVERTON, et. al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division

Date published: Aug 30, 2006

Case No. 2:03-cv-216 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 30, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. 2:03-cv-216.

August 30, 2006

ORDER

R. EDGAR, District Judge

Defendants move for summary judgment on the plaintiff's remaining claims under F. R. Civ. P. 56 [Doc. No. 72]. Plaintiff moves for summary judgment. [Doc. No. 74]. Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley has submitted a report and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), and W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.1 [Doc. No. 87]. It is recommended that the motions be denied. Plaintiff objects to the report and recommendation to the extent that the Magistrate Judge recommends the plaintiff's summary judgment motion be denied.

After reviewing the record de novo, the Court concludes that the plaintiff's objection [Doc. No. 94] is without merit and it is DENIED. 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 defendants' summary judgment motion [Doc. No. 72] and the plaintiff's summary judgment motion [Doc. No. 74] are DENIED. There are genuine issues of material fact in dispute which preclude summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.

SO ORDERED.