UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TOMMY HALL, #228329

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-10933

v. DISTRICT JUDGE DAVID M. LAWSON

DR. RAWAL, MAGISTRATE JUDGE MARK A. RANDON,

Defendant.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT DR. RAWAL

On March 12, 2009, Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against

several prison healthcare officials and two corporate medical service providers. (Dkt. No. 1). On

May 17, 2010, Plaintiff, represented by counsel, filed an Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 52; Ex.

1). Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on January 25, 2011. (Dkt. No. 64). All

Defendants were dismissed from the case, except Dr. Rawal. 

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint does not list Dr. Rawal in the “Parties” section

nor is Dr. Rawal listed as a Defendant in any of Plaintiff’s causes of action. (Dkt. No. 64 at 3-4,

10, 12, 17, 21, 23). Indeed, Dr. Rawal’s name is only mentioned twice in the Second Amended

Complaint: (1) “[o]n April 27, 2000, during a previous incarceration, Plaintiff received surgery to

relieve nerve tension by MDOC neurosurgeon Dr. Rawal”; and (2) “Plaintiff requested to see the

neurosurgeon, Dr. Rawal, but he did not see him until 12/12/08, 4 months after the initial

request.” (Dkt. No. 64 at ¶¶ 12, 22). 

1

2:09-cv-10933-DML-MAR Doc # 161 Filed 08/30/12 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 2385
This Magistrate Judge finds Plaintiff abandoned his claims against Dr. Rawal, and it is

RECOMMENDED that Dr. Rawal be DISMISSED. 

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and

Recommendation, but are required to act within fourteen (14) days of service of a copy hereof as

provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file specific

objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140

(1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 508 (6th Cir. 1991); United

States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). The filing of objections which raise

some issues, but fail to raise others with specificity, will not preserve all the objections a party

might have to this Report and Recommendation. See Willis v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,

931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370,

1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections is to be

served upon this Magistrate Judge.

Within fourteen (14) days of service of any objecting party’s timely filed objections, the

opposing party may file a response. The response shall be no more than 20 pages in length

unless, by motion and order, the page limit is extended by the court. The response shall address 

each issue contained within the objections specifically and in the same order raised.

s/Mark A. Randon 

Mark A. Randon

United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: August 29, 2012

2

2:09-cv-10933-DML-MAR Doc # 161 Filed 08/30/12 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 2386
Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the parties of record on this

date, August 29, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Melody R. Miles 

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon

3

2:09-cv-10933-DML-MAR Doc # 161 Filed 08/30/12 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 2387