Whaley-El v. Michigan Department of Corrections

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: January 10, 2025
• Docket: 2:22-cv-12725
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION4

KEVIN ARNAZ WHALEY-EL,

Plaintiff, Case No. 22-12725 v. Hon. George Caram Steeh JOHN DORRIS, et al., Hon. Elizabeth A. Stafford

Defendants. ____________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 49)

On December 9, 2024, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford issued a report and recommendation proposing that the court grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In response, the court received a letter from Plaintiff postmarked December 27, 2024. With respect to reports and recommendations from magistrate judges, this court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The court “may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” Id. In this action, Plaintiff asserts that his right to freely exercise his religion was violated when the Michigan Department of Corrections refused

to allow him to wear a kufi, a religious cap. The magistrate judge found that Plaintiff’s religious practice was not substantially burdened, because an alternative cap (a fez) was permitted and Plaintiff did not request an

exemption from the policy. Plaintiff generally objects to the magistrate judge’s ruling, asserts that his rights were violated, and states that he is entitled to a jury trial. He does not, however, specifically articulate how the magistrate judge erred and his general objections are unavailing. See Willis

v. Sullivan, 931 F.3d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991) (“[O]nly those specific objections to the magistrate’s report made to the district court will be preserved for appellate review.”).

Upon review of the report and recommendation, and have received no specific objection, the court agrees with Magistrate Judge Stafford’s analysis and conclusions. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge

Stafford’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 49) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the order of the court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 46) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s complaint is

DISMISSED. Dated: January 10, 2025 s/George Caram Steeh HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on January 10, 2025, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also on Kevin Arnaz Whaley-El #155829, Lakeland Correctional Facility, 141 First Street, Coldwater, MI 49036.

s/LaShawn Saulsberry Deputy Clerk