Summary
allowing pro se plaintiff to rely on additional facts "[e]ven though these assertions do not precisely conform to the summary judgment rules"
Summary of this case from Berry ex rel. HNBV v. Rsu 13 Sch. Bd.Opinion
C.A. NO. 09-cv-10259-MAP.
October 13, 2010
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION WITH REGARD TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Dkt. Nos. 44 61)
Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee in the Hampden County Correctional Center ("HCCC") and, proceeding pro se, filed a fourteen-count complaint against various HCCC officials alleging constitutional claims of excessive force, denial of medical care, and failure to investigate and supervise, as well as tort claims of assault and battery and negligence. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment was referred to Magistrate Judge Kenneth P. Neiman for a report and recommendation.
The Report and Recommendation mistakenly refers to the Hampshire County Correctional Center.
On September 22, 2010, Judge Neiman issued his Report and Recommendation, to the effect that Defendants' motion should be allowed. Judge Neiman's memorandum admonished the parties that any objections were due within fourteen days of the parties' receipt of the Report and Recommendation. See Dkt. No. 61 at 18, n. 4. No objections have been filed.
Based on the clear substantive correctness of the Report and Recommendation, and upon Plaintiff's failure to file any objection, the court, upon de novo review, hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 61).
For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby ALLOWS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 44). The clerk is ordered to enter judgment for Defendants. This case may now be closed.
It is So Ordered.