Riley v. Haney et al, No. 5:2012cv00352 - Document 49 (E.D. Ky. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) ACCEPTING & ADOPTING Magistrate Judge Smith's 48 Report and Recommendations; (2) GRANTING dfts' 40 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 6/2/14.(KJR)cc: COR, pla (US Mail)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON ) ) ) ) ) ) Action No. 5:13-CV-352-JMH-CJS ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER ) ) ) ) GLEN RILEY. Plaintiff, v. STEVE HANEY, et al., Defendants. ** ** ** ** ** This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation 48]. Judge of Magistrate Judge Candace Smith [DE Said action was referred [DE 21] to the Magistrate for the Recommendation purpose pursuant of to preparing 28 U.S.C. § a filed her Report and Report and 636(b)(1)(B) Defendants motion for summary judgment. Judge J. on The Magistrate Recommendation on April 25, 2014, in which she recommended that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Steve Haney and Gary Prestigiacomo [DE 40] be granted because Plaintiff failed to establish an Eighth Amendment claim and that, even if Plaintiff had raised a genuine issue of material fact with respect to his Eighth Amendment claim, Defendants Haney and Prestigiacomo are entitled to qualified immunity. The Report and Recommendation advised Plaintiff Glen Riley that specific objections to same were due within fourteen days of the date of service of the Report and Recommendation or further appeal would be waived. Fourteen days have now expired, and Plaintiff Riley has not filed objections or otherwise responded to the Report and Recommendations. Generally, a judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. fails 28 U.S.C. § 636. to file any However, when the petitioner objections to the Report and Recommendation, as in the case sub judice, [i]t does not appear that review of Congress a intended magistrate s to factual require or under a de novo or any other standard. U.S. 140, 150 (1985). district legal court conclusions, Thomas v. Arn, 474 Consequently, this Court adopts the reasoning set forth in the Report and Recommendation as its own.1 1 Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and, finding the authorities and reasoning therein to be sound, would adopt the Report and Recommendation if it were reviewed under a de novo standard. 2 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED herein as follows: (1) That Magistrate Judge Smith s Report and Recommendation [DE 48] be, and the same hereby is, ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; (2) That the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Steve Haney and Gary Prestigiacomo [DE 40] is GRANTED. This the 2nd day of June, 2014. 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
