Opinion
23-11901
08-23-2024
MIKE JAMIL, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER VEENEMA, ET AL., Defendants.
DAVID R. GRAND, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ORDER: (1) GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 21]; (2) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 24]; and (3) DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On July 18, 2023, pro se plaintiff Mike Jamil (“Jamil”), an incarcerated person, commenced this civil rights action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against four individuals employed by the Michigan Department of Corrections: Officer Veenema, Sergeant Reed, Officer Stolter, and Officer Corlew (collectively “Defendants”). (ECF No. 1). On August 4, 2023, this case was transferred to this Court. (Id.). On January 18, 2024, it was referred to the Judge David Grand for all pretrial purposes. (ECF No. 13).
On April 19, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Jamil's complaint - which pleads violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments - fails to state a claim as a matter of law. (ECF No. 21). Because Jamil failed to oppose Defendants' motion, despite having twice been ordered to do so, and for the other reasons discussed in Judge Grand's Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”), Judge Grand recommended that Defendants' Motion for Dismissal Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 21) be granted.
Plaintiff did not object to the R&R. For the reasons set forth in the R&R: (1) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; and (2) the Court accepts and adopts the R&R. This matter is DISMISSED with prejudice.
SO ORDERED.