From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hardy v. Marble

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Mar 9, 2012
Case No. 11-13008 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 9, 2012)

Opinion

Case No. 11-13008

03-09-2012

DAVID C. HARDY, Plaintiff, v. DIANNE MARBLE, RN LYNCH, RN SULLIVAN, RN PETTY, and RN ORTH, Defendants.


Honorable Patrick J. Duggan


OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS PETTY'S, LYNCH'S AND

ORTH'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against Defendants claiming violations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 16, 2011, this Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Charles Binder for all pretrial proceedings, including a hearing and determination of all non-dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and/or a report and recommendation on all dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Defendants Petty, Lynch, and Orth filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 on September 16, 2011.

On February 3, 2012, Magistrate Judge Binder filed a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending that this Court grant the motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 26.) Magistrate Judge Binder concludes that Plaintiff's claim against Defendants Petty, Lynch, and Orth are barred because he failed to exhaust the administrative grievance process with respect to these defendants due to his failure to comply with the time requirements for filing his Step III appeal set forth in the Michigan Department of Corrections' Policy Directives. (Id. at 7-8.) At the conclusion of the R&R, Magistrate Judge Binder advises the parties that they may object to and seek review of the R&R within fourteen days of service upon them. (Id. at 8-9.) He further specifically advises the parties that "[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right to appeal." (Id.) Neither party filed objections to the R&R.

The Court has carefully reviewed the R&R and concurs with the conclusions reached by Magistrate Judge Binder.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED, that Magistrate Judge Binder's R&R is adopted;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Defendants Petty's, Lynch's, and Orth's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to these Defendants, only.

PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

David Hardy, #159525

Kinross Correctional Facility

16770 S. Watertower Drive

Kincheloe, MI 49788

AAG Allan J. Soros

Magistrate Judge Charles Binder


Summaries of

Hardy v. Marble

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Mar 9, 2012
Case No. 11-13008 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 9, 2012)
Case details for

Hardy v. Marble

Case Details

Full title:DAVID C. HARDY, Plaintiff, v. DIANNE MARBLE, RN LYNCH, RN SULLIVAN, RN…

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

Date published: Mar 9, 2012

Citations

Case No. 11-13008 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 9, 2012)