From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mitchell v. Caruso

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Dec 26, 2006
Case No. 06-11567 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 26, 2006)

Summary

finding moot plaintiffs' claim that DOM 2005-4 violated prisoners' First Amendment rights where the rule was superseded by Rule 23, and plaintiffs had not brought claims under Rule 23 itself

Summary of this case from Jones v. Caruso

Opinion

Case No. 06-11567.

December 26, 2006


ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


There having been no objection to Magistrate Judge Majzoub's Report and Recommendation [Docket #40-1] filed September 25, 2006 granting Defendants' motion to dismiss and the Court being fully advised in the premises;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Majzoub is adopted.


Summaries of

Mitchell v. Caruso

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Dec 26, 2006
Case No. 06-11567 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 26, 2006)

finding moot plaintiffs' claim that DOM 2005-4 violated prisoners' First Amendment rights where the rule was superseded by Rule 23, and plaintiffs had not brought claims under Rule 23 itself

Summary of this case from Jones v. Caruso
Case details for

Mitchell v. Caruso

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT MITCHELL III, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PATRICIA L. CARUSO, et al…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Dec 26, 2006

Citations

Case No. 06-11567 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 26, 2006)

Citing Cases

Jones v. Caruso

Defendants argued that Rule 23 is narrowly tailored to prevent MDOC prisoners from committing fraudulent acts…

John Doe v. Mich. Dep't of Corr.

In two cases, as Plaintiffs point out, judges of this district have considered the same or similar MDOC bans…