From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Davis v. Walton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Jan 29, 2014
Case No. 1:12-CV-258 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 29, 2014)

Summary

dismissing retaliation claim and finding that "prisoners have no constitutionally protected liberty or property interest in prison employment under the Fourteenth Amendment"

Summary of this case from Diamond v. Jackson

Opinion

Case No. 1:12-CV-258

01-29-2014

ANDRE K. DAVIS, #198028, Plaintiff, v. SHERRY WALTON, et al., Defendants.


HON. ROBERT HOLMES BELL


ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On December 27, 2013, Magistrate Judge Joseph G. Scoville issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Dkt. No. 44) recommending that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 30) be granted and that judgment be entered in Defendants' favor on all Plaintiff's claims. (Dkt. No. 44, R&R.) No objections have been filed, and the deadline for doing so has expired. The Court has reviewed the matter and concludes that the R&R correctly analyzes the issues and makes a sound recommendation. Accordingly,

The R&R originally sent by U.S. Mail on December 30, 2013, was returned for a better address. The R&R was re-mailed with the complete address on January 8, 2014.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's December 27, 2013, R&R (Dkt. No. 44) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 30) is GRANTED.

__________

ROBERT HOLMES BELL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Davis v. Walton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Jan 29, 2014
Case No. 1:12-CV-258 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 29, 2014)

dismissing retaliation claim and finding that "prisoners have no constitutionally protected liberty or property interest in prison employment under the Fourteenth Amendment"

Summary of this case from Diamond v. Jackson

In Davis v. Walton, No. 1:12-CV-258, 2014 WL 320206 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 29, 2104), the district court explained that prisoner plaintiff's failure to receive the prison job of his choice was a routine inconvenience of prison life that would not deter a person of ordinary person from engaging in protected conduct.

Summary of this case from Bailey v. Ingram
Case details for

Davis v. Walton

Case Details

Full title:ANDRE K. DAVIS, #198028, Plaintiff, v. SHERRY WALTON, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Jan 29, 2014

Citations

Case No. 1:12-CV-258 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 29, 2014)

Citing Cases

Walton v. Jones

Jewell, 20 F. App'x at 377. See also Bailey v. Ingram, No. 5:14-279, 2014 WL 5431300, at *5 (W.D. Ky. Oct.…

Robinson v. Killips

See Smith v. Campbell, 250 F.3d 1032, 1037 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Mount Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.…