UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION (at London)

JERRY ROBINSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 6:22-CV-52-CHB-MAS ) v. ) ) ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE LAUREL COUNTY, et al., ) JUDGE’S REPORT AND ) RECOMMENDATION Defendants. )

*** *** *** *** This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge Matthew A. Stinnett. [R. 76]. The Report and Recommendation addresses the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Defendants, in which the Defendants argue the Plaintiff’s constitutional claims fail as a matter of law. See [R. 72]. Robinson had responded to the motion [R. 74], and the Defendants replied [R. 75]. In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Stinnett detailed the facts on which the Plaintiff bases his claimed violations of the Eighth Amendment (brought pursuant to

), see [R. 76, pp. 1–2], and determined that Plaintiff has failed “to show Defendants were deliberately indifferent,” a necessary element for a constitutional claim, see

. Magistrate Judge Stinnett’s Report and Recommendation advised the parties that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of the entry of the Recommendation on August 16, 2023.

. No objections were filed by either party during the original fourteen day period, and after reviewing the docket in early October, the Court served a copy of the Recommendation on Robinson on October 2, 2023, to ensure a clean record. See [R. 77]. Once again, no objections have been filed. Generally, this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made.

(b)(1). When no objections are made, this Court is not required to “review . . . a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard.” See Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). Parties who fail to object to a Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition are also barred from appealing a district court’s order adopting that recommended disposition. See United States v. White,

(6th Cir. 2017); United States v. Walters,

(6th Cir. 1981). Nevertheless, this Court has examined the record and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [R. 76] is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. 2. The Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [R. 72] is GRANTED. 3. A separate judgment shall issue. This the 1st day of November, 2023. Maer, (ore. YousBoono Wan . mae a a COURT JUDGE Sa KS EASTERN AND WESTERN DISTRICTS OF “a” KENTUCKY

_2-