UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
MICHAEL ANGELO BURNETT, #200640, )
Plaintiff, )
) No. 2:25-cv-203
-v- )
) Honorable Paul L. Maloney
BRENDA BUCHANAN, ., )
Defendants. )
)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Michael Burnett, a prisoner under the control of the Michigan Department
of Corrections, alleges Defendants violated his civil rights. Plaintiff proceeds without the
assistance of counsel. Defendant Buchanan filed a motion for summary judgment raising
the failure to exhaust as a defense (ECF no. 15). The Magistrate Judge issued a report
recommending the court grant Defendant’s motion (ECF No. 35). Plaintiff filed objections
(ECF No. 42).
After being served with a report and recommendation (R&R) issued by a magistrate
judge, a party has fourteen days to file written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A district court judge
reviews de novo the portions of the R&R to which objections have been filed. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Only those objections that are specific are entitled to a
de novo review under the statute. , 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (per
curiam).
The court finds that Plaintiff’s objections do not establish any error in the Magistrate
Judge’s findings of fact or conclusions of law. MDOC identified a proper reason for rejecting
Plaintiff’s grievance. The Magistrate Judge set forth the relevant provisions and deadlines in
the Policy Directive concerning Grievances and concludes Plaintiff did not properly exhaust
his grievance against Defendant Buchanan. Plaintiff has not established that the
requirements in the Policy Directive for Grievances do not apply to disputes about health
care services.
Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the report and recommendation (ECF No. 35) and
GRANTS Defendant Buchanan’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 15). IT IS SO
ORDERED.
Date: April 14, 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.