Edward Cromer v. Melinda Braman, et al, No. 09-1532 (6th Cir. 2011)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 11a0744n.06 Case No. 09-1532 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Nov 01, 2011 LEONARD GREEN, Clerk EDWARD JAMES CROMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MELINDA K. BRAMAN, et al., Defendants-Appellees. _______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN BEFORE: BATCHELDER Chief Judge; COLE and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges. ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Chief Judge. Edward Cromer, a pro se plaintiff imprisoned at the Alger Maximum Correctional Facility in Michigan, brought claims against various prison officials for violations of numerous constitutional rights and retaliation for the exercise of his First Amendment rights. In an order dated March 31, 2008, the district court dismissed several of Cromer s claims. In an opinion dated March 25, 2009, the district court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, denying Cromer s motion for summary judgment and granting Appellees motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims. Cromer appealed. After carefully reviewing the district court s opinion, the magistrate judge s report and recommendation, Cromer s brief,1 and the extensive record in this case, we conclude that the district 1 The Defendants-Appellees elected not to file a brief, relying instead on their filings in the court below and the opinion of the district court. No. 09-1532, Cromer v. Braman, et al. court did not err in denying summary judgment to Cromer and granting summary judgment to the defendants. As the district court correctly set out the applicable law and correctly applied that law to the facts contained in the record, issuance of a full written opinion by this court would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court s opinion, we AFFIRM. 2

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.