UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

KEVIN L. GILES,

Plaintiff, Case No: 24-10137

v. Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris CHRISTOPHER R. SWANSON, et al.,

Defendants. _______________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FEBRUARY 29, 2024 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [8]

This is a prisoner civil rights case in which pro se Plaintiff Kevin L. Giles alleges that his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated at the Genesee County Jail when he was placed in an overcrowded and unsanitary intake cell without a mat wrongfully placed on suicide watch. Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's February 29, 2024 Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 8.) The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint sua sponte under

(e)(2) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The parties were required to file specific written objections, if any, to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation within fourteen days of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d). No objections were filed. “[T]he failure to object to the magistrate judge’s report[ ] releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter.” Hall v. Rawal, 09-10933,

, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 24, 2012) (citing Thomas v. Arn,

(1985)). The Court has nevertheless carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation and concurs in its findings and conclusions. Neither placement in the intake cell under the conditions which Plaintiff describes nor placement on suicide watch rise to the level of a constitutional violation. See Shelton v. Christian County Jail, No. 5:14-CV-P146,

, at *2 (W.D. Ky Jan. 16, 2015); Evans v. Bruge, No. 1:20-cv-833,

, at *7 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 25, 2020). In addition, the manner in which Plaintiff was treated does not rise to the level of a

constitutional claim. See Hanson v. Madison Co. Detention Center,

, 530 (6th Cir. 2018) (finding that pushes, shoves and use of knees to restrain and handcuff a defendant do not rise to the level of a constitutional claim). The Court therefore ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 8) and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint. SO ORDERED. s/ Nancy G. Edmunds Nancy G. Edmunds United States District Judge Dated: April 16, 2024

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on April 16, 2024, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/ Holly Ryan Case Manager