Clark v. Patton

Clark · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan · December 23, 2024 · No. 23-cv-11574

Summary

This United States District Court order adopts a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation regarding pending motions for summary judgment. The court denies in part the motions filed by Defendants Michael McCollough and Renata Patton, while granting Defendant Andrea Owens’s motion. Additionally, the court dismisses the plaintiff’s claims against Patton for harassing language and against McCollough pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), finding no clear error in the magistrate’s recommendations after reviewing the unobjected record.

Court
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Writing for the Court
Mark A. Goldsmith
Jurisdiction
United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan
Decision date
December 23, 2024
Docket number
23-cv-11574
Procedural posture
The district court reviewed a magistrate judge's unobjected-to report and recommendation addressing defendants' motions for summary judgment and recommended statutory dismissal of certain claims.
Standard of review
When no timely objection is filed to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record before accepting the recommendation.
Precedential value
Unpublished district court opinion; precedential status not stated and identified as unknown in the available metadata.
Disposition
other

Topics

summary judgmentprisoners rightscivil rightscivil procedure

Practice areas

civil rightsprisoner litigationcivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. What standard of review applies when no party timely objects to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation?
  2. Whether the court should adopt the magistrate judge's recommendation concerning the defendants' motions for summary judgment and statutory dismissal of specified claims.

Holdings

  1. When no timely objection is filed to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court may accept the recommendation after satisfying itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.
  2. The court adopted the report and recommendation, denied in part McCollough and Patton's motion for summary judgment, granted Owens's motion for summary judgment, dismissed Clark's claims against Patton based on harassing or abusive language, and dismissed Clark's claims against McCollough under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Key quotations

On the face of the record, the Court finds no clear error and accepts the recommendation.

Factual background

The opinion concerns a prisoner civil-rights action brought by Burrell Clark against Renata Patton, Michael McCollough, and Andrea Owens. The magistrate judge recommended partial denial of McCollough and Patton's motion for summary judgment, granting Owens's motion, dismissal of Clark's claims against Patton based on harassing or abusive language, and dismissal of Clark's claims against McCollough under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The parties did not object to the report and recommendation.

Procedural history

Magistrate Judge David R. Grand issued a November 26, 2024 report and recommendation recommending that the court deny in part Michael McCollough and Renata Patton's motion for summary judgment, grant Andrea Owens's motion for summary judgment, dismiss Clark's claims against Patton based on harassing or abusive language, and dismiss Clark's claims against McCollough under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). No party filed timely objections. The district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, found none, adopted it, denied McCollough and Patton's motion in part, granted Owens's motion, and dismissed the specified claims.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…