Opinion
Case No. 10-cv-11943
2013-09-18
AMIRA SALEM, Plaintiff, v. MILLICENT WARREN, et.al., Defendants.
HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION (document no. 31)
This is a prisoner civil rights case. Plaintiff Amira Salem has brought an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violation of her First Amendment right to receive confidential mail and violation of her First Amendment right to access the courts as a result of the alleged delay in the delivery of her legal mail. The Court referred all pre-trial proceedings to Magistrate Judge Whelan for resolution or recommendation. On October 12, 2012, Salem filed a motion to for entry of judgment in her favor on the issue of liability. Mot. for Summ. Disposition, ECF. No. 21. Defendants filed a response on February 21, 2013. Resp. to Mot. for Summ. J., ECF. No. 30. On August 27, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report"), recommending that Salem's motion be denied because he found that there were unresolved issues of material fact regarding both of her claims. ECF No. 31.
Civil Rule 72(b) governs review of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. De novo review of the magistrate judge's findings is only required if the parties "serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Nevertheless, because a district judge always retains jurisdiction over a motion after referring it to a magistrate judge, he is entitled to review the magistrate judge's findings of fact and conclusions of law on his own initiative. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154 (1985) (clarifying that while a district court judge need not review a report and recommendation "de novo if no objections are filed, it does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard").
Because neither party filed objections to the Report, de novo review of the Report's conclusions is not required. Having reviewed the Report's analysis, in light of the record, the Court finds that its conclusions are factually based and legally sound. Accordingly, it will adopt the Report's findings and deny the motion for summary judgment.
ORDER
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (document no. 31) is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment (document no. 21) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
________
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
United States District Judge
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on September 18, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
Carol Cohron
Case Manager