From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Maynard v. Caruso

United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Sep 14, 2006
Case No. 1:06-CV-339 (W.D. Mich. Sep. 14, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. 1:06-CV-339.

September 14, 2006


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


The Court has before it Plaintiff's Objections to the report and recommendation dated August 3, 2006, in which Magistrate Judge Brenneman recommended that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to demonstrate exhaustion as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). In addition to his Objections, Plaintiff has also filed a so-called "Counter Affidavit By Letter Rogatory" in response to the report and recommendation. After conducting a de novo review of the report and recommendation, the Court concludes that the report and recommendation should be adopted by the Court.

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Objections as well as his "Counter-Affidavit" and finds nothing in those documents that is responsive to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. Those documents consist of commercial law words and phrases woven together in an incoherent manner. In any event, Plaintiff has not shown exhaustion of his claims. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation issued August 3, 2006 (docket no.) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the Opinion of this Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to demonstrate exhaustion as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

This case is concluded.


Summaries of

Maynard v. Caruso

United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Sep 14, 2006
Case No. 1:06-CV-339 (W.D. Mich. Sep. 14, 2006)
Case details for

Maynard v. Caruso

Case Details

Full title:JAMIE A. MAYNARD, Plaintiff, v. PATRICIA CARUSO, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Sep 14, 2006

Citations

Case No. 1:06-CV-339 (W.D. Mich. Sep. 14, 2006)