From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lindensmith v. Walton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Feb 17, 2016
Case No. 14-cv-13342 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 17, 2016)

Summary

declining to apply Ingram to Class II misconducts because they are sent to a prisoner's central file and may result in loss of special disciplinary credits, which could ultimately extend a prisoner's sentence

Summary of this case from Lewis v. Brooks

Opinion

Case No. 14-cv-13342

02-17-2016

DAVID LINDENSMITH, Plaintiff, v. ERIC WALTON, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (document no. 22), GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (document no. 17) AND DISMISSING THE CASE

David Lindensmith is a prisoner with the Michigan Department of Corrections. He brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleged that multiple officials at the Parnell Correctional Facility violated his constitutional rights. The defendants filed a joint motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 17. The Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Stafford. Magistrate Judge Stafford filed a Report and Recommendation on January 25, 2016, and advised the Court to grant the motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 22.

A copy of the Report was served on both parties on January 25, 2016. Under Civil Rule 72(b), each party had fourteen days from the date of service to file any written objections. Because Lindensmith was incarcerated, the Court added several days to allow Lindensmith to file an objection. The Report states that all objections were due by February 11, 2016. Neither party has filed any objections. De novo review of the Report is therefore not required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court has reviewed the file and the Report, and finds that the Report's analysis is proper. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report's findings and conclusion and will enter an appropriate judgment.

ORDER

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (document no. 22) is ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment (document no. 17) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED.

s/Stephen J. Murphy, III

STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

United States District Judge Dated: February 17, 2016 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on February 17, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol Cohron

Case Manager


Summaries of

Lindensmith v. Walton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Feb 17, 2016
Case No. 14-cv-13342 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 17, 2016)

declining to apply Ingram to Class II misconducts because they are sent to a prisoner's central file and may result in loss of special disciplinary credits, which could ultimately extend a prisoner's sentence

Summary of this case from Lewis v. Brooks

declining to apply Ingram to Class II misconducts because they are sent to a prisoner's central file and may result in loss of special disciplinary credits, which could ultimately extend a prisoner's sentence

Summary of this case from Roden v. Hansen
Case details for

Lindensmith v. Walton

Case Details

Full title:DAVID LINDENSMITH, Plaintiff, v. ERIC WALTON, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Feb 17, 2016

Citations

Case No. 14-cv-13342 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 17, 2016)

Citing Cases

Roden v. Hansen

In recent decisions, the Eastern District has specifically distinguished between Class II and Class III minor…

Lewis v. Brooks

In recent decisions, the Eastern District has specifically distinguished between Class II and Class III minor…