Seals v. Scutt et al

Filing 120

ORDER granting 94 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 108 Motion for Summary Judgment; finding as moot 111 Motion for Expert ; adopting 113 Report and Recommendation; Denying 118 Motion for De Novo Review,. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
NICHOLAS SEALS,
Plaintiff,
vs

Case No: 10-15054
Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

VERNON STEVENSON, M.D.,
Defendant.
______________________________/

ORDER:
(1)

ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION;

(2)

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT;

(3)

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

(4)

DEEMING MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXPERT TO BE
ASSIGNED TO THE CASE; AND

(5)

DENYING MOTION FOR DE NOVO REVIEW.

On August 23, 2016, Magistrate Judge Mona Majzoub filed a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court grant Defendant Vernon
Stevenson, M.D.’s (“Stevenson”) Motion for Summary Judgment. Magistrate Judge
Majzoub also recommended that Plaintiff Nicholas Seals’ (“Seals”) Motion for Summary
Judgment be denied, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Expert To Be Assigned to the Case be
denied as moot.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), a Magistrate Judge’s recommendations
1

regarding dispositive matters are reviewed de novo. The referring judge may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations to which objection
is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
Summary judgment is appropriate if the “pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Copeland v. Machulis, 57 F.3d 476, 478 (6th Cir. 1995).
The moving party bears the initial burden to show that there is no genuine issue of
material fact. Snyder v AG Trucking, Co., 57 F.3d 484, 488 (6th Cir. 1995). Once the
moving party meets this burden of production, the non-moving party must come forward
with significant probative evidence showing that a genuine issue exists for trial.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256, (1986).
Seals filed four objections:
(1)

The Magistrate Judge inaccurately determined Seals’ treatment by
Stevenson;

(2)

The medical expert’s opinion was unsigned and that lack of signature
presented a genuine issue of fact;

(3)

The Magistrate Judge erroneously concluded Stevenson provided proper
medical follow-up care; and

(4)

The Magistrate Judge erroneously concluded no further expert opinions
were needed.

A careful review of the underlying record, the recitation of facts and law by the
Magistrate Judge in her report and recommendation, as well as Seals’ objections, leads
this Court to conclude there are no genuine issues of fact for trial, and that the
Magistrate Judge correctly found in favor of Defendant.
2

In a separate motion, Seals contends that he was prevented from receiving
Stevenson’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and was not able to respond to it. He asks
the Court to defer review of the motion and appoint him a lawyer. Contrary to what
Seals claims, the record show he responded to Stevenson’s Motion for Summary
Judgment. In his response, Seals makes reference to Stevenson’s Motion fo Summary
Judgment. The Magistrate Judge also considered Seals’ response in making her
determination.
Because the Magistrate Judge’s R&R is adopted and Seals was not prejudiced in
the proceeding, the Court DENIES Seals’ Motion to Defer De Novo Review. Seals’
request for an attorney is DENIED.
The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and GRANTS Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment; DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for Summary Judgment; and
deems Plaintiff’s Motion for Expert to Be Assigned to the Case MOOT. Judgment will
enter in favor of Defendant. This case is closed.
IT IS ORDERED.

/s/ Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Robert
United States District Judge
Dated: November 2, 2016
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of
record and Nicolas Seals by electronic means
or U.S. Mail on November 2, 2016.
s/Linda Vertriest
Deputy Clerk

3