Oben 753474 v. Corizon

District Court, W.D. Michigan·Decided October 22, 2021·No. 1:20-cv-01050·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

KYLE LEE OBEN,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:20-cv-1050 v. HONORABLE PAUL L. MALONEY UNKNOWN DELACRUZ,

Defendant. ____________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is a prisoner civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. Defendants Calkins and Delacruz also filed a motion for summary judgment. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation on September 22, 2021, recommending that this Court deny the motion filed by Plaintiff and grant the motion filed by the Defendants and enter judgment. The Report and Recommendation was duly served on the parties. No objections have been filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 49) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 32) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 43) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for the same reasons the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s claims are properly dismissed, the Court also concludes that any issue Plaintiff might raise on appeal would be frivolous. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). Accordingly, the Court certifies that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. A Judgment will be entered consistent with this Order.

Dated: October 22, 2021 /s/ Paul L. Maloney Paul L. Maloney United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Oben 753474 v. Corizon, (W.D. Mich. 2021).

Oben 753474 v. Corizon (Oben 753474 v. Corizon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)