Mixon v. Bronson Health Care Group, Inc. et al, No. 1:2013cv00843 - Document 109 (W.D. Mich. 2015)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 107 , Plaintiff's motions for summary judgment 84 and 98 are DENIED; Defendants' motion for summary judgment 94 is GRANTED; Judgment to issue; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Mixon v. Bronson Health Care Group, Inc. et al Doc. 109 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION KETURAH MIXON, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:13-cv-843 v HON. JANET T. NEFF BRONSON HEALTH CARE GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants. _______________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit in August 2013 against Defendants Bronson Battle Creek Hospital and Bronson Health Care Group, Inc., under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd. The case was referred to the Magistrate Judge (Dkt 4). Plaintiff and Defendants subsequently filed motions for summary judgment, and the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R, Dkt 107), recommending that this Court grant Defendants’ motion and deny Plaintiff’s motions. The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation (Dkt 108). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has performed de novo consideration of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. The Court determines that the Magistrate Judge carefully handled this case and carefully and thoroughly considered the record, the parties’ arguments, and the law governing a claim brought under the EMTALA. Further, the Magistrate Judge properly analyzed the factual and legal support for Plaintiff’s claim. None of the assertions in Plaintiff’s objections Dockets.Justia.com persuades the Court otherwise. Rather, Plaintiff’s objections merely reiterate and expand the positions she adopted in her motion papers, without demonstrating any factual or legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis that would warrant rejecting the Magistrate Judge’s ultimate conclusion that “there is no genuine issue of material fact on the [] critical elements of Plaintiff’s claim” (R&R, Dkt 107 at 2). For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the Court agrees that Defendants are entitled to the relief they seek. Accordingly, the Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the Opinion of this Court and enter a Judgment consistent with this Opinion and Order. See FED. R. CIV. P. 58. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Objections (Dkt 108) are DENIED, and the Report and Recommendation (Dkt 107) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions for Summary Judgment (Dkts 84 & 98) are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt 94) is GRANTED. /s/ Janet T. Neff JANET T. NEFF United States District Judge Dated: March ___, 2015 31 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.
