Coates v. Jurado et al

Filing 104

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION AND denying 78 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
EMANUEL SHAWN COATES,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 12-15529

v.

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

JEMER JURADO, SUBRINA
AIKEN, and CORIZON,
INCORPORATED,

Magistrate Judge Paul J. Komives

Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 86) AND (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 78)
On December 17, 2012, Plaintiff Emanuel Coates, a state prisoner, instituted
this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Nurse Practitioner Jemer Jurado,
Registered Nurse Subrina Aiken, and Corizon, Inc. are named as defendants;
however, this Court previously granted Defendant Aiken’s Motion for Summary
Judgment and dismissed her from this action. Plaintiff contends that Defendants
were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth
Amendment by failing to provide him with a replacement hearing aid. Plaintiff
further contends that Defendants violated Title II of the ADA by denying him
participation in a government program on account of his disability.

This Court referred the lawsuit to Magistrate Judge Paul J. Komives for all
pretrial matters proceedings, including a hearing and determination of all nondispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and/or a report and
recommendation on all dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
Plaintiff subsequently filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, seeking the entry of judgment against
Defendant Jurado with respect to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference claim. Defendant Jurado responded to Plaintiff’s Motion. In
accordance with the aforementioned referral, Magistrate Judge Komives issued an
R&R recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion. At the conclusion of
the R&R, Magistrate Judge Komives advises the parties that they may object to
and seek review of the R&R within fourteen (14) days of service upon them.
Plaintiff filed timely objections to this R&R and Defendant Jurado responded.
Having carefully reviewed the R&R and Plaintiff’s objections thereto, this Court
agrees with the conclusions reached by Magistrate Judge Komives and therefore
adopts the R&R denying Plaintiff’s Motion.
I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Federal Magistrates Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-578, 82 Stat. 1107,
“creates two different standards of review for district courts when a magistrate
court’s finding [or recommendation] is challenged in district court [by way of a
2

party’s objection]. A district court shall apply a ‘clearly erroneous or contrary to
law’ standard of review for the ‘nondispositive’ preliminary measures of [28
U.S.C.] § 636(b)(1)(A). [] Conversely, ‘dispositive motions’ excepted from §
636(b)(1)(A), . . . are governed by the de novo standard.” United States v. Curtis,
237 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir. 2001) (internal quotations omitted); see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A)-(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.
When objections are filed to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation on a dispositive matter, such as in the instant action, courts are
directed to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).

In completing this de novo

review, courts reexamine the relevant evidence previously reviewed by the
magistrate judge to determine whether the recommendation should be “accept[ed],
reject[ed], or modif[ied], in whole or in part[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(3). This does not, however, require a court “to articulate all of the
reasons it rejects a party’s objections.” Thomas v. Halter, 131 F. Supp. 2d 942,
944 (E.D. Mich. 2001) (citations omitted).
II.

ANALYSIS

Objection #1:

3

Plaintiff first objects to Magistrate Judge Komives’s conclusion “that the
Medical records submitted by Plaintiff did not demonstrate that his hearing loss
was a serious medical need.” (Pl.’s Objs. 2.) This objection also appears to
encompass a challenge to Magistrate Judge Komives’s finding with respect to the
subjective component of an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim. (Id.
at 4-5 (discussing evidence pertinent to subjective prong of deliberate indifference
standard, specifically, Defendant Jurado’s alleged falsification of documents).)
In addressing Plaintiff’s burden on the objective component of a deliberate
indifference claim, Magistrate Judge Komives explains that “the documents upon
which plaintiff relies do not in themselves establish that plaintiff’s hearing loss was
so severe as to constitute a serious medical need.” (R&R 6 (citation omitted).)
Plaintiff argues that this conclusion was erroneous, particularly when the medical
records are read in tandem with the affidavits of other prisoners indicating that
Plaintiff has been injured or nearly-injured while incarcerated due to his hearing
loss. (Pl.’s Objs. 2-4.) The Court need not dwell on this argument because
assuming for the sake of argument that Plaintiff’s hearing loss constitutes a serious
medical condition such that it satisfies the objective component of his claim,
Plaintiff cannot show an absence of disputed facts regarding whether Defendant
Jurado’s conduct satisfies the subjective component. This is because Defendant
Jurado offered a Declaration as evidence in response to Plaintiff’s summary
4

judgment motion in which she claims she did, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions,
refer Plaintiff for an audiogram and that it was a different person who ultimately
determined that Plaintiff did not qualify for a hearing aid. (R&R 6.) Because
Plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion on his Eighth Amendment claim,
Magistrate Judge Komives correctly concluded that Plaintiff failed to discharge his
burden at the summary judgment stage. Plaintiff’s first objection is therefore
denied.
Objection #2:
Plaintiff’s second objection is to Magistrate Judge Komives’s alternative
basis for denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (Pl.’s Objs. 57.) In his R&R, Magistrate Judge Komives concluded that summary judgment was
also improper because Defendant Jurado had adequately shown a need for further
discovery in order to properly respond to Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion.
(R&R 6.) In reaching this conclusion, Magistrate Judge Komives relied on Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) and on the fact that Plaintiff had not, to date,
authorized the release of certain requested medical documents to Defendant
Jurado. Although Plaintiff disputes the relevance of the medical documents
sought, the Court has already deemed the items relevant and entered an Order to
that effect on February 11, 2014. These documents have yet to be produced
because Plaintiff must first submit an authorization for the release of the requested
5

documents in an MDOC-approved form. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge
Komives’s recommendation that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be
denied to allow for more discovery is entirely proper. The Court, therefore, denies
Plaintiff’s second objection.
III.

SUMMARY AND ORDER

For the reasons set forth herein, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s
objections to the R&R lack merit and therefore adopts the R&R.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is
DENIED.
Date: April 23, 2014
s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Emanuel Coates, #155262
Carson City Correctional Facility
10274 Boyer Road
Carson City, MI 48811
Cori E. Barkman, A.A.G.
Kandy C. Ronayne, A.A.G.
Kevin R. Himebaugh, A.A.G.
Magistrate Judge Paul J. Komives

6