From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hadix v. Mich. Dep't of Corr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Dec 8, 2016
Case No. 16-10173 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 8, 2016)

Opinion

Case No. 16-10173

12-08-2016

WILLIAM HADIX, Plaintiff, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., Defendants.


Mona K. Majzoub United States Magistrate Judge

OPINION AND ORDER: (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 29); (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NOS. 14 & 28); (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY (ECF NO. 20); AND (4) DISMISSING THIS ACTION WITH PREJUDICE

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub's Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court grant Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 14 & 28) and DENY Plaintiff's Motion to Stay (ECF No. 20). Plaintiff did not file an objection to the Report and Recommendation.

The Court acknowledges that the Report and Recommendation erroneously states that Defendant Joel Robinson was not served with the Complaint. (Report and Recommendation, at 1 n. 2.) The Court finds this statement is merely a clerical error, as the Magistrate Judge makes clear later in the Report and Recommendation that Defendant Robinson was served on September 28, 2016. (Report and Recommendation, at 4.) The Court also acknowledges that the Report and Recommendation was filed less than 21 days after Defendant Robinson filed his Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, however, has neither filed a response to Defendant Robinson's Motion for Summary Judgment, nor filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. --------

Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and there being no timely objections from either party under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich L.R. 72.1(b), the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 29); GRANTS Defendants Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 14 & 28); DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Stay (ECF No. 20); DECLINES supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and DISMISSES the Complaint with PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Paul D. Borman

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: December 8, 2016

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on December 8, 2016.

s/Deborah Tofil

Case Manager


Summaries of

Hadix v. Mich. Dep't of Corr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Dec 8, 2016
Case No. 16-10173 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 8, 2016)
Case details for

Hadix v. Mich. Dep't of Corr.

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM HADIX, Plaintiff, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Dec 8, 2016

Citations

Case No. 16-10173 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 8, 2016)