Searcy et al v. Macomb County Jail et al
ORDER Adopting 290 Report and Recommendation Granting Defendant's 282 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (JOwe)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Lavelle Searcy, et al.,
Case Number 10-11242
Hon. Denise Page Hood
Macomb County Jail, et al.,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. # 290)
Plaintiff Lavelle Searcy, along with others, filed this prisoner civil rights suit
alleging violations of their constitutional rights. Searcy is the only remaining
Plaintiff in this matter. The Amended Complaint alleged that the Macomb County
Jail (“MCJ”) had a black mold infestation, consequently, prisoners were served
food that was nutritionally inadequate. Searcy also alleged that water at the MCJ
was sour and tore up his skin and the MCJ allegedly provided inadequate medical
health care. Searcy alleged “reports” of E-coli from unnamed sources, inadequate
ventilation and fire detection and alarm systems, and brutally cold housing. Searcy
further alleged MCJ’s grievance system and law library were inadequate. He
contends he was threatened in retaliation for filing, or expressing his desire to file,
complaints regarding these conditions. Searcy also alleged a violation of his First
Amendment rights. He alleged that Macomb County violated his right to the free
exercise of Judaism.
Pretrial matters were assigned to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Stafford.
Magistrate Judge Stafford issued a report and recommendation recommending that
the Court grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgement (Doc. # 282).
Magistrate Judge Stafford concluded that Searcy failed to show: (1) Macomb
County exhibited deliberate indifference to Searcy’s conditions of pretrial
confinement; (2) Macomb County had a policy that prevented Searcy from
exercising religious rights; (3) Macomb County exhibited any retaliatory motive
regarding any of the alleged adverse actions Searcy received from filing or
attempting to file grievances; and (4) Searcy was hindered in his efforts to pursue a
legal claim as a result of the alleged inadequacy of or lack of access to the jail’s
Once a report and recommendation has been issued, a party has fourteen
days to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge's proposed findings and
recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636. A district court is not required to review any
portion of a report and recommendation to which no objection was made.
Hickey-Niezgoda v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, No. 11-10538, 2012 WL
1079573, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 30, 2012) citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
Neither party filed any written objections, and the time period for filing
objections has expired. After carefully reviewing the motion for summary
judgment and the Report and Recommendation, the Court agrees with Magistrate
Judge Stafford's recommendations. She accurately laid out the facts, properly
examined portions of the record, and applied the correct standard of review.
Magistrate Judge Stafford engaged in a thorough analysis of the issues and
provided reasoned explanations for her conclusions.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Stafford's Report and
Recommendation and GRANTS Defendant Macomb County’s Motion for
Summary Judgment. (Doc. #282).
IT IS ORDERED.
S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
United States District Judge
Dated: February 29, 2016
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on
February 29, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
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?