Doss v. Corizon Medical Corporation, No. 4:2018cv11930 - Document 50 (E.D. Mich. 2020)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER (1) Adopting Magistrate Judge's 44 Report and Recommendation; (2) Granting Defendants Corizon Health, Inc.'s and Donald Haiderer, D.O.'s 37 Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies; and (3) Denying as Moot Plaintiff's 49 Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Doss v. Corizon Medical Corporation Doc. 50 Case 4:18-cv-11930-LVP-EAS ECF No. 50 filed 10/27/20 PageID.289 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CLARY DOSS, Plaintiff, Civil Case No. 18-11930 Honorable Linda V. Parker v. CORIZON MEDICAL CORPORATION and DONALD HAIDERER, Defendants. / OPINION AND ORDER (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S AUGUST 26, 2020 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 44]; (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS CORIZON HEALTH, INC.’S AND DONALD HAIDERER, D.O.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES [ECF NO. 37]; AND (3) DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS [ECF NO. 49] Plaintiff Clary Doss—a state prisoner at the Chippewa Correctional Facility in Kincheloe, Michigan—filed this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Corizon Medical Corporation and Dr. Donald Haiderer, alleging that Defendants violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by failing to remove the cataract from his right eye, which caused “unnecessary pain and suffering, including partial blindness for several years.” (ECF No. 32 at Pg. ID 109.) Defendants subsequently moved for summary judgment. (ECF No. 37.) The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford for all pretrial proceedings, including a hearing and determination Dockets.Justia.com Case 4:18-cv-11930-LVP-EAS ECF No. 50 filed 10/27/20 PageID.290 Page 2 of 3 of all non-dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and/or a report and recommendation (“R&R”) on all dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (ECF No. 39.) On August 26, 2020, Magistrate Judge Stafford issued a R&R, recommending that the Court grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 44.) In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Stafford concluded that Plaintiff failed to exhaust all available administrative remedies and his failure to do so could not be excused. (See id. at Pg. ID 276.) At the conclusion of the R&R, Magistrate Judge Stafford informed the parties that they must file any objections to the R&R within 14 days. (Id.) She further advised that, “[i]f a party fails to timely file specific objections, any further appeal is waived.” (Id. (citing Howard v. Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991).) On September 9, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections. (ECF No. 45.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion and ordered objections to be filed by October 13. (ECF No. 46.) On September 28, Plaintiff requested an additional extension. (ECF No. 47.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s request, ordered objections to be filed by October 23, and noted that no further extensions would be granted. (ECF No. 48.) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has expired. The Court reviewed the August 26, 2020 R&R and concurs with the conclusions reached by Magistrate Judge Stafford. The Court therefore (i) ADOPTS the R&R (ECF 2 Case 4:18-cv-11930-LVP-EAS ECF No. 50 filed 10/27/20 PageID.291 Page 3 of 3 No. 44); (ii) GRANTS Defendants Corizon Health, Inc.’s & Donald Haiderer, D.O.’s Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies (ECF No. 37); and (iii) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections (ECF No. 49) as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Linda V. Parker LINDA V. PARKER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: October 27, 2020 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record and/or pro se parties on this date, October 27, 2020, by electronic and/or U.S. First Class mail. s/ R. Loury Case Manager 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.
