From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Range v. Eagan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Aug 22, 2018
Case No. 17-11245 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 22, 2018)

Opinion

Case No. 17-11245

08-22-2018

DUANE RANGE, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL EAGAN, ET AL., Defendants.


U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID R. GRAND

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [49] AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [45]

On April 20, 2017, Plaintiff Duane Range, a former prisoner in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections ("MDOC"), through counsel, filed a civil rights complaint [Dkt. 1] against two groups of defendants: 1) CPI, Inc., a private company, as well as CPI employees Scott Montgomery, Matthew Buryta, Greg Konopka, and Kyle Foley ("the CPI Defendants"); and 2) Michael Eagan, the Michigan Parole Board, Heidi Washington, the MDOC, Sara Flesher, and Sherry Underwood ("the State Defendants"). He claims that Defendants violated his freedom of religion under the First Amendment.

The Court referred all pretrial matters to the Magistrate Judge on August 25, 2017 [11]. On January 17, 2018, the Court issued an Order [31] resolving two Reports and Recommendations ("R&R") [20, 26]. The Court's Order, among other things, granted the CPI Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [9]. Those defendants are no longer part of this action.

Plaintiff was discharged from MDOC custody on February 2, 2018. Plaintiff subsequently filed two amended complaints [34, 38] on February 8, 2018 and April 13, 2018, respectively.

Defendants Michael Eagan and Heidi Washington filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [45] on May 31, 2018. Approximately two months later, the Magistrate Judge issued an R&R [49] advising the Court to grant the motion and dismiss Plaintiff's claims without prejudice. No objections to the R&R were filed.

The Court having reviewed the briefings and the Report and Recommendation [49], the Report and Recommendation is hereby ADOPTED and entered as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [45] is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims against Michael Eagan and Heidi Washington are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED.

s/Arthur J. Tarnow

Arthur J. Tarnow

Senior United States District Judge Dated: August 22, 2018


Summaries of

Range v. Eagan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Aug 22, 2018
Case No. 17-11245 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 22, 2018)
Case details for

Range v. Eagan

Case Details

Full title:DUANE RANGE, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL EAGAN, ET AL., Defendants.

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

Date published: Aug 22, 2018

Citations

Case No. 17-11245 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 22, 2018)

Citing Cases

Delk v. Hardeman Cnty. Corr. Facility

stated in Siler, a party once released cannot evade PLRA exhaustion by simply restating previously made…