Smith 773449 v. Davis

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

XAVIER SMITH, #773449, ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 1:23-cv-1243 -v- ) ) Honorable Paul L. Maloney JOHN DAVIS, ., ) Defendant. ) )

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Xavier Smith, a prisoner under the control of the Michigan Department of Corrections, alleges the defendants violated his civil rights. Defendant Davis, an assistant deputy warden, filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 39). Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not properly exhaust his administrative remedies. The Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending the court grant Defendant’s motion (ECF No. 67). The Magistrate Judge also recommends the court dismiss the remaining claims brought against the unknown defendant. Plaintiff filed a motion for settlement (ECF No. 68) and objections to the report (ECF No. 69).1 The court will adopt the report and recommendation and will dismiss Plaintiff’s motion. After being served with a report and recommendation (R&R) issued by a magistrate judge, a party has fourteen days to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A district court judge

1 Plaintiff neglected to sign his objections and the Magistrate Judge issued on order giving Plaintiff a deadline to correct the omission. Plaintiff timely placed the signature page in the prison mail system (ECF No. 71 PageID.464.) The court has considered Plaintiff’s objection. reviews de novo the portions of the R&R to which objections have been filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Only those objections that are specific are entitled to a de novo review under the statute. , 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (per

curiam). The Magistrate Judge finds that Plaintiff did not properly exhaust any claim against Defendant Davis. The Magistrate Judge concludes that Plaintiff has not sufficiently supported his allegation that he could not access the grievance system. Plaintiff has not put forth any evidence to support his factual allegation. Plaintiff objects.

The court overrules the objection. Plaintiff’s objection simply repeats the same allegation. He does not provide any evidence to prove that he did not have access to the grievance system. Plaintiff has not established that the Magistrate Judge’s finding of fact was clearly erroneous. Plaintiff does not object to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the unknown defendant be dismissed. Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the report and recommendation (ECF No. 67) and

GRANTS Defendant Davis’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 39). The court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s motion to enter into a settlement (ECF No. 68) as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: August 26, 2025 /s/ Paul L. Maloney Paul L. Maloney United States District Judge