Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Adams v. Ballard

United States District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington

March 17, 2015

CHARLES EDWARD ADAMS, JR., Plaintiff
v.
RODNEY BALLARD, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

KAREN K. CALDWELL, CHIEF JUDGE

This matter is before the Court a motion for summary judgment brought by defendants Rosita Rodriguez and Robert Simpson (DE 30) and a pro se motion for summary judgment brought by plaintiff Charles Adams (DE 32). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct all further proceedings, including preparing proposed findings of fact and recommendations on any dispositive motions. (DE 25).

Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins filed his Report and Recommendations (DE 38) on February 24, 2015. Based on a review of the record and the applicable case law, Magistrate Judge Atkins recommended that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied and defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. Judge Atkins advised the parties that they had fourteen (14) days in which to file objections to the recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). No party has filed objections, nor sought an extension of time to do so.

Generally, this Court makes a de novo determination of those portions of a recommended disposition to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). However, this Court is not required to “review . . . a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Furthermore, parties who fail to object to a Magistrate’s report and recommendation are barred from appealing a district court’s order adopting that report and recommendation. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). Nevertheless, this Court has examined the record, and having made a de novo determination, it agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (DE 38). Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (DE 38) is ADOPTED as and for the opinion of the Court;

2. The motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Rosita Rodriguez and Robert Simpson (DE 30) is GRANTED;

3. Plaintiffs claims against defendants Rosita Rodriguez and Robert Simpson are DISMISSED; and

4. Plaintiff Charles Adams’s Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 32) is DENIED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.