Burnett 200640 v. Washington

Docket 2:25-cv-00203

Filed
2025-08-15
Terminated
Not recorded
Case type
cv

Outcome

No sourced outcome is recorded. A termination date alone does not establish who prevailed.

Parties and representation

      Party and firm records are not available for this case.

      Panel

        No sourced panel votes are recorded.

        Opinions and documents

        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION MICHAEL ANGELO BURNETT #200640, Plaintiff, Case No. 2:25-cv-203 v. HONORABLE PAUL L. MALONEY BRENDA BUCHANAN, Defendant. _______________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This is a prisoner civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 20, 2026. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation on February 6, 2026 recommending that the amended complaint be dismissed in part. The Report and Recommendation was duly served on the parties. No objections have been filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF. No. 21) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Complaint is DISMISSED IN PART for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. Specifically, all claims contained in the Amended Complaint are dismissed except for Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims of denial of medical care against Defendants Buchanan and Russo arising from Plaintiff’s pre- cancerous/cancerous condition. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for the same reasons the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s claims are properly dismissed, the Court also concludes that any issue Plaintiff might raise on appeal would be frivolous. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). Accordingly, the Court certifies that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Dated: March 12, 2026 /s/ Paul L. Maloney Paul L. Maloney United States District Judge

        Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.