UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JAMES ROBERT BATES, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-10109 

v. Honorable Patrick J. Duggan 

 

 Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford 

OBELL WINN, et al., 

 Defendants. 

________________________/ 

ORDER (1) ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION, (2) MODIFYING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

ORDER, (3) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT, AND (4) DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE 

 On October 27, 2014, pro se Plaintiff James Robert Bates, a prisoner in the 

custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections, instituted this prisoner’s civil 

rights case against Defendant Obell Winn, the acting warden of the Saginaw 

Regional Correctional Facility, Defendant James Roth, an inspector, as well as 

unnamed John Doe Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his 

Eighth Amendment rights were violated after he was assaulted by two inmates and 

subsequently denied medical treatment. The case was referred to United States 

2:15-cv-10109-PJD-EAS Doc # 41 Filed 09/23/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 237
2

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford for all pretrial matters pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

 On September 1, 2015, Magistrate Judge Stafford issued an R&R 

recommending that this Court grant each named Defendant’s separately-filed 

motions for summary judgment on the basis that Plaintiff failed to administratively 

exhaust his claims. In her R&R, Magistrate Judge Stafford notes that because the 

judgment is not on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims, the dismissal should be without 

prejudice. At the conclusion of the R&R, Magistrate Judge Stafford informed the 

parties that any objections to the R&R must be filed within fourteen days and that 

the failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of 

appeal. No objections to the R&R have been filed, and the time for doing so has 

expired. 

 Also on September 1, 2015, Magistrate Judge Stafford issued an order 

requiring Plaintiff to identify the John Doe Defendants by September 21, 2015, or 

risk the issuance of a show cause order inquiring as to why the case against the 

John Does should not be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). 

 Having thoroughly reviewed the parties’ papers, the R&R, and the order 

issued by Magistrate Judge Stafford, the Court concurs with the recommendation 

2:15-cv-10109-PJD-EAS Doc # 41 Filed 09/23/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 238
3

that both Defendant Winn’s and Defendant Roth’s summary judgment motions be 

granted and that the claims against them be dismissed without prejudice. The 

Court, however, believes the more efficient resolution with respect to the John 

Does is not to issue a show cause order, but rather to dismiss them from the action 

without prejudice to Plaintiff. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Stafford’s R&R (ECF No. 39) is 

ADOPTED, that Defendant Winn’s summary judgment motion is GRANTED

(ECF No. 24), that Defendant Roth’s summary judgment motion is GRANTED

(ECF No. 13), and that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE. 

Dated: September 23, 2015 

 

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Copies to: 

James Robert Bates, #337711 

19336 Schaefer Hwy. 

Detroit, MI 48235

Allan J. Soros, AAG 

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford 

 

2:15-cv-10109-PJD-EAS Doc # 41 Filed 09/23/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 239