Mayfield v. Miles et al

Filing 21

ORDER Adopting 12 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, Overruling 20 MOTION in Response to REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and Dismissing With Prejudice Defendant G. Robert Cotton Facility. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (SGam)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
CHARLES MAYFIELD,
Plaintiff,
Case Number: 13-10341
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

v.
RICHARD MILES, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING
DEFENDANT G. ROBERT COTTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Plaintiff Charles Mayfield filed this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prisoner civil rights action
against Defendants G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility, Dr. Richard Miles, Warden Debra
Scutt, P.A. Keff, Health Unit Manager Joyce Hunter, and Nurse Practitioner Dawn Lybarger.
Pl.’s Compl. 5, ECF No. 1. Plaintiff, an inmate, alleges that Defendants violated his Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights by not treating his bone cancer, denying that he suffers from bone
cancer, and refusing to provide follow-up visits to the specialist who originally diagnosed him.
Id. at 3.
On April 19, 2013, United States Magistrate Judge Mark Randon issued a report
recommending that Defendant Cotton Correctional Facility be dismissed because it “is not a
‘person’ capable of being sued under Section 1983.” Report & Recommendation 1, ECF No. 12.
Plaintiff was given fourteen days to file any objections to the report. Id. at 4.
On May 2, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion in response to the report and recommendation,
asserting that “dismissal should not be granted to defendant’s [sic] because plaintiff can show
that a true claim can be proven under the Eighth Amendment.” Pl.’s Mot. 1, ECF No. 20.

Plaintiff goes on to assert that his “complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim
upon which relief could be granted.” Id. at 3. Throughout his motion, Plaintiff does not
acknowledge that the report recommended only the dismissal of Defendant Cotton Correctional
Facility, but instead argues that he has a valid claim which should be heard. It is fairly clear that
Plaintiff misunderstood Judge Randon’s recommendation.

Judge Randon did not suggest

Plaintiff’s case be dismissed in its entirety; rather, only one Defendant.
Although Plaintiff has not made a particularized objection to Judge Randon’s report, he
did file a motion asserting his claim should not be dismissed, and so the Court will review the
report de novo. Upon review, Judge Randon made the correct determination that Defendant
Cotton Correctional Facility is not a person capable of being sued under § 1983, and accordingly,
it will be dismissed from this § 1983 action.
I
Plaintiff proceeds in this case in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. When
such a plaintiff asks the Court to waive fees and costs because he cannot afford to pay them, the
Court must screen the case for merit and dismiss the case if it “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii)
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
“Section 1983 imposes liability on any ‘person’ who violates an individual’s federal
rights while acting under color of state law. A correctional facility is not a ‘person,’ and
therefore, is not capable of being sued under the statute.” Floyd v. Emmet Cnty. Corr. Facility,
No. 06-CV-283, 2006 WL 1429536, at *2 (W.D. Mich. May 23, 2006) (collecting cases).
Accordingly, Defendant Cotton Correctional Facility is “a defendant who is immune.”

-2-

§

1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). So even accepting as true all the well-pleaded allegations of Plaintiff’s
complaint, he cannot prove any set of facts that would entitle him to relief under § 1983 against
the Cotton Correctional Facility. Thus, Defendant G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility will be
dismissed from the case.
The Court wishes to emphasize, for Plaintiff’s benefit, that this is not a dismissal of his
entire cause of action. His claims against the other five Defendants remain, at least for now.
Defendant Debra Scutt has filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), and Plaintiff has been ordered to respond no later than May 29, 2013. See Apr. 29,
2013 Order 1, ECF No. 19.
II
It is ORDERED that Judge Randon’s report and recommendation, ECF No. 12, is
ADOPTED.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion in response, ECF No. 20, is construed as
an objection and OVERRULED.
It is further ORDERED that Defendant G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility is
DISMISSED with prejudice.
Dated: May 8, 2013

s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge

PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon
each attorney of record herein by electronic means and on Charles Mayfield,
#127467, G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility, 3500 N. Elm Road,
Jackson, MI 49201 by first class U.S. mail on May 8, 2013.
s/Tracy A. Jacobs
TRACY A. JACOBS

-3-