Young v. Prison Health Services et al
ORDER Overruling 25 Objections, Adopting 24 Report and Recommendation, Granting Defendants' 19 Motion for Summary Judgment, Denying Plaintiff's 14 Motion to Consent as Moot, Dismissing Federal Claim With Prejudice, and Dismissing State Law Claims Without Prejudice. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (KWin)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 16-cv-13016
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington
PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, et al.,
Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS, ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSENT AS MOOT,
DISMISSING FEDERAL CLAIM WITH PREJUDICE, AND
DISMISSING STATE LAW CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE
On August 18, 2016, Plaintiff Jesse Young, a prisoner housed at the Gus Harrison
Correctional Facility, initiated the above-captioned matter by filing his pro se complaint against
Defendants Prison Health Services, Nurse Caldwell, Mary Verlard, Christine Pigg, “Poma,” and
“Brahman.” See Compl., ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleges that employees of the Prison Health
Services violated his constitutional rights through deliberate indifference to his claims of severe
kidney and liver pain and by failing to assess him for tuberculosis. Id. He further alleges that
after he filed a grievance, a jail employee, Defendant Brahman, retaliated against him by falsely
accusing Plaintiff of harassing a fellow inmate. In addition to his federal claim under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, Plaintiff asserts claims of medical malpractice, negligence, and retaliation. The matter was
referred to Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub for report and recommendation. On September
21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion giving consent to the magistrate judge to conduct all
proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). See ECF NO. 14. Defendants did not file a response to
Neither Defendant Prison Health Services nor Defendant Poma was served in this matter
despite two attempts by the United States Marshall Service. See ECF Nos. 7-9. On October 10,
2016, Defendants Caldwell, Velarde, Pigg, and Brahman filed a motion for summary judgment,
arguing that Plaintiff’s federal claim should be dismissed for failing to exhaust his administrative
remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a). See ECF No. 19.
On June 1, 2017 the
magistrate judge issued her report and recommendation, recommending that Plaintiff’s federal
claim be dismissed with prejudice and his state law claims be dismissed without prejudice. See
ECF No. 24. She also recommended that Plaintiffs motion to give consent be denied as moot.
Plaintiff filed objections to the report on June 13, 2017. See ECF No. 25.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, a party may object to and seek review of
a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Objections must
be stated with specificity. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 151 (1985) (citation omitted). If
objections are made, “[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate
judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). De novo review
requires at least a review of the evidence before the magistrate judge; the Court may not act
solely on the basis of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. See Hill v. Duriron Co.,
656 F.2d 1208, 1215 (6th Cir. 1981). After reviewing the evidence, the Court is free to accept,
reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of the magistrate judge. See Lardie v. Birkett,
221 F. Supp. 2d 806, 807 (E.D. Mich. 2002).
Only those objections that are specific are entitled to a de novo review under the statute.
Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986). “The parties have the duty to pinpoint those
portions of the magistrate’s report that the district court must specially consider.” Id. (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). A general objection, or one that merely restates the
arguments previously presented, does not sufficiently identify alleged errors on the part of the
magistrate judge. See VanDiver v. Martin, 304 F.Supp.2d 934, 937 (E.D.Mich.2004). An
“objection” that does nothing more than disagree with a magistrate judge’s determination,
“without explaining the source of the error,” is not considered a valid objection. Howard v. Sec’y
of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). Without specific objections,
“[t]he functions of the district court are effectively duplicated as both the magistrate and the
district court perform identical tasks. This duplication of time and effort wastes judicial resources
rather than saving them, and runs contrary to the purposes of the Magistrate’s Act.” Id.
Through his objection, Plaintiff broadly argues that he has presented genuine issues of
material fact with regard to his claims, and that summary judgment is therefore inappropriate.
However, because Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies as required by law, this
Court will not address the substance of his claims. The election not to file specific objections to
the magistrate judge’s findings regarding exhaustion releases the Court from its duty to
independently review the record, and waives any further right to appeal those findings. Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
As pointed out by the magistrate judge, Defendants did not challenge Plaintiff’s state law
claims in their motion for summary judgment. When a plaintiff’s federal claims have been
dismissed on the merits, the question of whether to retain jurisdiction over any state law claims
rests within the court’s discretion. Blakely v. United States, 276 F.3d 853, 860 (6th Cir. 2002).
However, the dismissal of the claims over which the federal court had original jurisdiction
creates a presumption in favor of dismissing without prejudice any state-law claims that
accompanied it to federal court. Id. at 863. In addition, “[n]eedless decisions of state law should
be avoided both as a matter of comity and to promote justice between the parties, by procuring
for them a surer-footed reading of applicable law.” United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383
U.S. 715, 726 (1966). Plaintiff’s state law claims will therefore be dismissed without prejudice.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections, ECF No. 25, are
It is further ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, ECF No.
24, is ADOPTED and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 19, is GRANTED.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED.
Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim is dismissed with prejudice. His state law claims are dismissed without
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to give consent, ECF No. 14, is DENIED
s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge
Dated: June 28, 2017
PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first
class U.S. mail on June 28, 2017.
KELLY WINSLOW, Case Manager
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?