Summary
finding two defendants not entitled to dismissal because, "[a]lthough the grievance is not a model of clarity, it does contain a passing reference to [the defendants] and complains that 'they' should not have prescribed Nizoral and should have referred plaintiff to a dermatologist"
Summary of this case from Medlock v. FreedOpinion
Case No. 1:08-cv-694.
November 4, 2009
OPINION and ORDER
Adopting the Report and Recommendation Without Objection:
Dismissing all Claims Against the State Defendants With Prejudice; Dismissing all Claims against the Doe Defendants Without Prejudice
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and W.D. MICH. LCIVR 72.2(b), this matter was referred to the Honorable Joseph G. Scoville, United States Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation ("R R") dated September 29, 2009 and filed September 30, 2009. The time for the plaintiff to file objections has long since elapsed, and he has neither filed objections nor sought an extension of time in which to do so. Accordingly, the court adopts the well-reasoned R R without discussion.
ORDER
The Report and Recommendation [doc. # 51] is ADOPTED without objection.The complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice as to these five defendants in both their official and individual capacities:
— Carmen Palmer
— Julie Saladin
— David DeGraaf
— Haresh Pandya, M.D.
— George Pramstaller, M.D.
Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m), the complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice as to the John Doe and Jane Doe defendants.
This is not a final and immediately-appealable order, because the complaint remains pending as to four defendants: CMS, Hutchinson, Mayer, and Sherry.
IT IS SO ORDERED