United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division, Pikeville
Gregory F. Van Tatenhove, United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation
[R. 41] filed by United States Magistrate Judge Hanly A.
Ingram, addressing the Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion
to Dismiss filed by the Defendants. [R. 34; R. 35.] Plaintiff
Michael Dewayne Padgett filed his pro se complaint
in this matter on April 4, 2019. [R. 1.] Because Mr. Padgett
is proceeding pro se, the Court referred this matter
to Judge Ingram “to oversee discovery and all matters
of pretrial management . . . including preparing proposed
findings of fact and recommendations on any dispositive
motions[.]” [R. 30 at 1-2.] Mr. Padgett has not
responded to either of Defendants' motions.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is
appropriate where “the pleadings, depositions, answers
to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with
affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.
“The failure to present any evidence to counter a
well-supported motion for summary judgment alone is grounds
for granting the motion.” Everson v. Leis, 556
F.3d 484, 496 (6th Cir. 2009).
Defendants served requests for admission on Mr. Padgett in
July 2019. Pursuant to Rule 36, “[a] matter is admitted
unless, within 30 days after being served, the party to whom
the request is directed serves on the requesting party a
written answer or objection addressed to the matter and
signed by the party or its attorney.” Mr. Padgett never
responded to the discovery request. Defendants contend that,
by failing to respond, Mr. Padgett has admitted that there
was no excessive use of force, all prison policies were
properly followed, and he possesses “no facts or
evidence to support [his] claims.” [R. 41 at 3; R. 34
at 3-5.] Thus, Defendants has demonstrated there is an
absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. Further, Mr.
Padgett has never responded to the Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment. By failing to respond, Mr. Padgett has also
failed to meet his burden to identify “specific
portions of the record upon which [he] seeks to rely to
create a genuine issue of material fact.” In re
Morris, 260 F.3d 654, 665 (6th Cir. 2001).
Ingram concluded, and this Court agrees, that Mr.
Padgett's admissions coupled with his failure to respond
to the motion for summary judgment is grounds for granting
the motion. Defendants carried their initial burden and
identified an absence of dispute as to any material fact.
Despite being warned that failing to respond could result in
a recommendation that Defendant's motion for summary
judgment be granted, Mr. Padgett has made no filings. [R.
36.] The Court therefore agrees with Judge Ingram's
recommendation that the Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgement be GRANTED.
Report and Recommendation notified parties of their appeal
rights pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), and directed parties to file
any objections within fourteen (14) days of service of the
Recommendation. [R. 41 at 5.] As of this date, neither party
has filed objections nor sought an extension of time to do
this Court must make a de novo determination of
those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which
objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). When no
objections are made, this Court is not required to
“review . . . a magistrate's factual or legal
conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard. . .
.” See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 151
(1985). Parties who fail to object to a magistrate's
report and recommendation are also barred from appealing a
district court's order adopting that report and
recommendation. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d
947 (6th Cir. 1981). Nevertheless, this Court has examined
the record, and agrees with the Magistrate Judge's Report
the Court having considered the record and being otherwise
sufficiently advised, it is hereby ORDERED
Recommended Disposition [R. 41] as to
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to
Dismiss is ADOPTED as and for the Opinion of
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [R.
35] is GRANTED;
Having ordered summary judgment in favor of the Defendants,
the Defendants' Motion to ...