Koetje v. Norton et al

Filing 82

ORDER Accepting 73 Report and Recommendation, Granting 60 Defendant Stieve's Motion for Summary Judgment and Dismissing Defendant Stieve Only. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DONNA KOETJE,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 13-12739
Honorable Denise Page Hood

v.
AMANDA NORTON, CHIEF MEDICAL
OFFICER STEIVE, and SQUIER OF
PRISON HEALTH SERVICES/CORIZON,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,
GRANTING DEFENDANT STIEVE’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT and
DISMISSING DEFENDANT STIEVE ONLY
This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 73)
filed by Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris on Defendant Stieve’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 60). Plaintiff Donna Koetje did not file a response to
the Motion for Summary Judgment. To date, no objections were filed to the Report
and Recommendation and the time to file such has passed.
The standard of review by the district court when examining a Report and
Recommendation is set forth in 28 U.S.C.§ 636. This Court “shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or the specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which an objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1)(c). The

Court “may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the Magistrate.” Id. In order to preserve the right to appeal
the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, a party must file objections to the Report and
Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of service of the Report and
Recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P 72(b)(2). Failure to file specific objections
constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); Howard v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 932 F2d 505 (6th Cir.
1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
After review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court
finds that her findings and conclusions are correct. The Court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s grievance appears to have been properly exhausted.
The Court will not dismiss the claim against Defendant Stieve for failure to exhaust
her administrative remedies.
The Court, however, will dismiss the Complaint against Defendant Stieve on
the merits based on the Magistrate Judge’s alternative recommendation. The Court
agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s disagreement over the course her
treatment fails to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference to
her serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Accordingly,
2

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Patricia T, Morris’ Report and
Recommendation (No. 73) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as this Court’s findings of
fact and conclusions of law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Stieve’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (No. 60) is GRANTED for the reasons set forth above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Stieve (Steive on the case caption)
only is DISMISSED from this action.1

S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
United States District Judge
Dated: February 12, 2015
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on February 12, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

1

Defendant Squier was dismissed on September 22, 2014. (Order, Doc. No. 74)
Defendant Amanda Norton is the remaining defendant in this action. Norton has filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 75) which has been referred to Magistrate Judge Anthony P.
Patti for a Report and Recommendation.
3