Jones v. Barnhart et al

Filing 41

ORDER adopting 35 Report and Recommendation; granting 19 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOHN JONES,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 10-12114

v.

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ARTHUR J. TARNOW

PATRICIA BARNHART, ET AL.,
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL J. KOMIVES
Defendants.
/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [35] AND GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [19]
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [19], filed on November 8,
2010. On September 13, 2011, Magistrate Judge Komives issued a Report and Recommendation [35]
recommending that Defendants’ motion be GRANTED. Plaintiff filed an Objection [40]. Defendants
did not file a response.
This case concerns Plaintiff John W. Jones’ allegations that the Defendants denied him access
to medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
Plaintiff also contends that Defendants violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) by
confining him to his cell and denying him an escape route out of the cell block in the case of a fire or
an emergency situation.
Defendants respond, first, that they were not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical
needs. Second, they argue that, as the Plaintiff has brought suit against the Defendant correctional
officers in their individual capacities, they are entitled to qualified immunity. Third, Defendants argue
that Plaintiff’s ADA claims fail because the ADA does not impose liability on individual Defendants
.

The Magistrate Judge agreed with Defendants arguments that they were not deliberately
indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical needs, and also found that the ADA did not permit individual
liability. Because the Magistrate Judge determined that Defendants were not deliberately indifferent
to Plaintiff’s medical needs, the Magistrate Judge did not reach the issue of qualified immunity.
Plaintiff objected generally to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, arguing that Defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his medical needs, and that they were not entitled to qualified immunity.
Plaintiff appears to concede in paragraphs 21 and 22 of his objection that the ADA does not impose
individual liability.
Factual Background
The Court adopts the detailed discussion of the factual background provide by the Magistrate
Judge.
Standard of Review
This Court reviews objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on a
dispositive motion de novo. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)©.
Analysis
In his objection Plaintiff repeats his argument that Defendants Burton, Rewerts, and Wilson
were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. The Magistrate Judge, in his R&R,
assumed for the purpose of argument that Plaintiff’s medical needs were serious; the Court will also
proceed under this assumption.
In his objection, the Plaintiff draws the Court’s attention to a grievance form, apparently
received on October 21, 2009, in which Plaintiff states that he complained to Defendant Burton about
his medical needs on October 9, 2009. In the grievance form, Plaintiff complains that he was unable
to attend a “lab call-out” and a dental appointment. The Plaintiff argues that this establishes that, at
2

the very least, Defendant Burton was aware of Plaintiff’s medical needs. The Court notes that said
grievance was filed on October 15, 2009 (the form itself has the date listed as “9/15/09,” but given that
the Plaintiff in the grievance form is claiming to have spoken to Defendant Burton in October, the
Court will assume the grievance was filed in October). In the grievance, Plaintiff complains that
because of his location in Auburn Unit, he was unable to attend a “Lab work callout for 9/14/09" and
a “Dental appointment on 10/1/09.” The Court notes that, purely from Plaintiff’s grievance, it is
unlikely that Defendants would have been aware of Plaintiff’s medical needs; further, Plaintiff’s
grievance was not received until October 22, 2009.
The Court find that Defendants were not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical needs.
As the Magistrate Judge noted in his R&R, Plaintiff apparently did not say anything about his medical
needs to Defendants Burton, Wilson, or Rewerts because he felt he had the right to “retain privacy of
his medical conditions, from non-medical person[nel].” This is undoubtedly true, but also undermines
Plaintiff’s argument that Defendants Burton, Wilson and Rewerts had sufficient knowledge of his
medical needs to be indifferent to said needs. Plaintiff’s argument that medical personnel should have
investigated why Plaintiff did not attend his appointments may be valid, but does not apply to
Defendants Burton, Wilson, or Rewerts, who were not medical personnel. Plaintiff presents no
evidence that said Defendants knew of Plaintiff’s specific medical issues prior to October 21, 2009,
when Plaintiff’s grievance form was received. Plaintiff also sent a kite regarding his pain on October
22, 2009.
Plaintiff was transferred from Auburn Unit to Cord Unit on October 16, 2009, the day after his
grievance was apparently filed. Plaintiff apparently sent a separate kite regarding medical treatment
on October 22, 2009, and had an appointment schedule on October 26, 2009. On October 31, 2009,
Plaintiff completed a health care request asking that his missed appointment be rescheduled. Said
3

appointment was rescheduled to November 10, 2009, and Plaintiff received a prescription and
treatment for his bladder infection.
Thus, prior to October 15, 2009, the Court finds that Defendants Rewerts and Wilson could
not have been aware of Plaintiff’s medical needs, and were not deliberately indifferent to said needs.
Plaintiff claims to have spoken to Defendant Burton about his medical needs on October 9, 2009, a
fact disputed by Burton. Even if true, however, Defendants seem to have been responsive to
Plaintiff’s needs in October. Plaintiff was transferred to another cell block unit, and had an
appointment scheduled for October 26, 2009.
Plaintiff’s argument that healthcare workers should have investigated his failure to appear for
appointments does not apply to Defendants Burton, Rewerts, or Wilson; to the extent that Plaintiff
argues that non-healthcare Defendants should have investigated his failure to attend appointment, it
is unclear that Defendants were aware that Plaintiff had medical appointments. As noted above, after
Plaintiff filed a grievance and/or spoke to Defendant Burton about his missed appointment, he was
transferred to another unit and an appointment was made relatively quickly.
Plaintiff’s also argues that Defendant Rewerts was responsible for keeping the elevator
functioning, and that failure to quickly repair the elevator, combined with an alleged order to remain
in the Auburn cell block, constituted deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s medical needs. The Court
finds that there is no evidence that Defendant Rewerts was aware of Plaintiff’s medical needs, and
was therefore not deliberately indifferent to said needs.
Plaintiff also objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the Defendants have
qualified immunity from suit in their individual capacity. The Magistrate Judge correctly determined
that overcoming qualified immunity requires a constitutional violations; as the Court has determined
that Defendants were not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical needs, no constitutional
violation has occurred, and the Court finds that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.
4

The Court having reviewed the record in this case, the Opinion and Order of the Magistrate
Judge is hereby ADOPTED and is entered as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [19] is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.
s/Arthur J. Tarnow
Arthur J. Tarnow
Senior United States District Judge
Dated: January 17, 2012

_______________________________________________________________________________
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify on January 17, 2012 that I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the
Clerk of the Court sending notification of such filing to all counsel registered electronically. I hereby
certify that a copy of this paper was mailed to the following non-registered ECF participants on
January 17, 2012: John Jones
s/Michael E. Lang
Deputy Clerk to
District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow
[phone]

5