Bailey v. Aramark Corporation et al, No. 5:2016cv00343 - Document 62 (E.D. Ky. 2018)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: IT IS ORDERED: 1. That the 61 Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Robert E. Wier is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED; 2. that Defendant's 58 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 6/6/2018.(KM)cc: COR, Pltf via U.S. mail
Download PDF
Bailey v. Aramark Corporation et al Doc. 62 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON DAVID WAYNE BAILEY, Plaintiff, v. ARAMARK CORPORATION, et al., Defendants . ** This matter ** is before ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 16-CV-343-JMH-REW MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ** ** the ** Court on the Report Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Robert E. Wier [DE 61]. action was referred to the magistrate to conduct and Said further proceedings and the preparation of a Report and Recommendation regarding any dispositive motions [DE 42]. Defendants made a Motion for Plaintiff, Summary David Judgment Wayne [DE Bailey, 58], did not to which respond. the See pro se DE 60 (ordering response from Plaintiff by March 7, 2018). In his Report and Recommendation [DE 61], the Magistrate Judge concludes that, in the absence of any genuine dispute of material fact, Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Bailey has failed to set forth sufficient proof regarding the objective and subjective elements of his claim for Dockets.Justia.com violation of the Eighth Amendment, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and because his claim for outrage under state law fails, as well. Bailey has filed no objections to the Report Recommendation, and the time to do so has expired. and See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Generally, determination proposed Aa of judge those findings or of the portions court of the recommendations judge.@ 28 U.S.C. ' 636. shall make report made by a or the de novo specified magistrate However, when the petitioner fails to file any objections to the Recommended Disposition, A[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate=s factual or legal conclusions, under a de Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 novo or any other standard.@ (1985). Further, the Court concludes that the recommended disposition is well supported by the law cited by the magistrate judge and the undisputed evidence offered Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. absence of any objections from in support of Consequently and in the Plaintiff Bailey, this Court adopts the well-articulated and detailed reasoning set forth in the Report and Recommendation as its own. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: (1) that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Robert E. Wier [DE 61] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED; (2) that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 58] is GRANTED 2 This is the 6th day of June, 2018. 3