Jones v. Prison Health Services, Incorporated et al

Filing 75

ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation for 65 Report and Recommendation, 31 Motion to Dismiss,, filed by Prison Health Services, Incorporated Signed by District Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SCOTT JONES,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 11-12134
Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff

v.
PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, DR. PRAGNA
PANDYA, DR. DAVID SHARP, DR. ADAM
EDELMAN, DR. ZIVIT COHEN, DR. YASIR
ZAIDI, JOHN DOE 1–20, MICHIGAN DEPT.
OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendants.
/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint with the Court alleging that Defendants—
Prison Health Services (“PHS”); Doctors Pragna Pandya, David Sharp, Adam Edelman, Zavit
Cohen, Yasir Zaidi, John Doe 1-20; and the Michigan Department of Corrections— violated his civil
rights by denying or delaying medical care for his alleged cancer [dkt 1]. Defendant PHS moved
for dismissal and/or summary judgment on the grounds that, inter alia, PHS cannot be held liable
for constitutional violations under a respondeat superior theory [dkt 31]. The matter currently
before the Court is Magistrate Judge Michelson’s Report and Recommendation [dkt 65], in which
the Magistrate Judge recommends granting PHS’s motion. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the
Report and Recommendation [dkt 68], to which PHS has responded [dkt 69]. The Court has
thoroughly reviewed the court file, the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiffs’s Objections, and
PHS’s Response. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and enters it
as the findings and conclusions of this Court. The Court will, however, briefly address Plaintiff’s
Objections.

Although Plaintiff has provided several objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, the objections nevertheless fail to show that PHS implemented a policy, custom,
or practice that caused a deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff claims that, should this case
proceed, “it is quite possible” that he will discover that it is the routine policy, custom or practice
of PHS to establish practices to have certain prisoners endure pain and suffering. This is
insufficient, as Plaintiff was required from the outset to make “a showing, rather than a blanket
assertion of entitlement to relief” and provide factual allegations “[sufficient] to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level” so that the claim is “plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the PHS’s motion to dismiss and/or for
summary judgement is GRANTED with respect to PHS only.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Lawrence P. Zatkoff
LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: March 28, 2012
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Order was served upon the attorneys of
record by electronic or U.S. mail on March 28, 2012.

S/Marie E. Verlinde
Case Manager
[phone]