Mahaffey v. Buskirk et al

Filing 44

Order Overruling Plaintiff's 42 Objections and Adopting 34 Report and Recommendation and Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant's Susan B. McCauley, Charles Turner, Karen Hamblin, and Haresh B. Pandya's 22 Motion to Dimiss or for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARK EDWARD MAHAFFEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 13-14646

JOSHUA A. BUSKIRK, SUSAN B.
MCCAULEY, CHARLES TURNER, FRANCES
HINSLEY, KAREN HAMBLIN, JEFFREY
STIEVE, S. LAUGHHUNN, SHARP,
JACOB, HARRIET SQUIER, and
HARESH B. PANDYA,

HON. AVERN COHN

Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS (Doc. 42)
AND
ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 34)
AND
GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS SUSAN B.
MCCAULEY, CHARLES TURNER, KAREN HAMBLIN, and HARESH B. PANDYA’s
MOTION TO DISMISS OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 22)
I. Introduction
This is a pro se prisoner civil rights case. Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of
the Michigan Department of Corrections. He asserts a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against defendants claiming a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights due to
inadequate medical care for the treatment of a back condition. The matter was referred
to a magistrate judge for all pretrial proceedings before whom defendants Susan B.
McCauley, Charles Turner, Karen Hamblin, and Haresh B. Pandya filed a Motion to
Dismiss or for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 22). Plaintiff filed a response. See Docs. 27,

30. The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (MJRR), recommending
that defendants’ motion be granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. 34).
Before the Court are plaintiff’s objections to the MJRR.1 (Doc. 42). For the
reasons that follow, For the reasons that follow, the objections will be overruled, the
MJRR will be adopted, defendants’ motion to dismiss or for summary judgment will be
granted in part and denied in part.
II. Background
The MJRR accurately sets forth the background facts alleged in the complaint.
Briefly, on November 8, 2013 plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against eleven (11)
defendants: Joshua A. Buskirk; Susan B. McCauley; Charles Turner; Frances Hinsley;
Karen Hamblin; Jeffery Stieve; S. Laughhunn; Sharp; Jacobs; Harriet Squier and
Haresh B. Pandya. The facts underlying plaintiff’s complaint stem from a September
27, 2001 back injury he sustained lifting weights while housed within the MDOC.
Plaintiff alleges that for years MDOC employees have failed to properly treat his
condition and as a result he is in constant pain. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in the
form of (1) sending him to a neurosurgeon for evaluation and (2) providing him with the
back surgery of which he is allegedly in need. He also seeks compensatory and
punitive relief based on defendants’ alleged deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious
medical needs.
Seven (7) of the eleven (11) defendants have appeared: Buskirk, Squier,

1

Plaintiff filed a paper styled “Plaintiff’s Motion to Object.” The Court construes
this filing as objections to the MJRR inasmuch as the paper is directed at the findings
and conclusions of the magistrate judge on defendants’ pending motion.
2

Hamblin, McCauley, Pandya, Turner, and Laughhunn.2 The following four (4)
defendants have not appeared: Hinsley, Stieve, Sharp and Jacob. To date, a
summons was returned unexecuted as to Hinsley (Doc. 37) and the MDOC responded
that it does not employ Sharp or Jacob. See Docs. 40, 41.
Following service, Hamblin, McCauley, Pandya and Turner’s filed a motion for
summary judgment or, in the alternative, motion to dismiss. They contend that
dismissal or summary judgment is appropriate because (1) “HUM McCauley, Nurse
Supervisor Hamblin and RN Turner” merely denied plaintiff’s administrative grievance[,]”
(2) “Plaintiff did not file a grievance regarding his allegations against Dr. Pandya” and
(3) “Defendants acted reasonably and did not violate Plaintiff’s clearly established
constitutional rights.”
The magistrate judge recommends that the motion be granted in part and denied
in part. Specifically, the magistrate judge recommends that plaintiff’s claims against
McCauley, Hamblin, and Turner be dismissed because he has not alleged the requisite
personal involvement of these defendants or the requisite level of deliberate indifference
as to McCauley. The magistrate judge also recommends that defendants’ motion be
denied as to Pandya because plaintiff did exhaust his administrative remedies as to
him. The magistrate judge further finds that plaintiff’s claims for damages against all of
these defendant in their official capacity are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
Finally, the magistrate judge finds it unnecessary to consider whether any of these
defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because (1) McCauley, Hamblin, and

2

Since the filing of the MJRR, Laughhunn has filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 36)
which is pending before the magistrate judge.
3

Turner are entitled to dismissal for other reasons and (2) Pandya did not seek dismissal
on qualified immunity grounds.
III. Legal Standard
A district court must conduct a de novo review of the parts of a magistrate
judge's report and recommendation to which a party objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The
district "court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate" judge. Id. The requirement of de novo
review "is a statutory recognition that Article III of the United States Constitution
mandates that the judicial power of the United States be vested in judges with life
tenure." United States v. Shami, 754 F.2d 670, 672 (6th Cir. 1985).
A general objection, or one that merely restates the arguments previously
presented, is not sufficient to alert the court to alleged errors on the part of the
magistrate judge. An "objection" that does nothing more than state a disagreement with
a magistrate judge's suggested resolution, or simply summarizes what has been
presented before, is not an objection as that term is used in this context. Howard v.
Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 508 (6th Cir. 991) ("It is arguable in
this case that Howard's counsel did not file objections at all.... [I]t is hard to see how a
district court reading [the ‘objections'] would know what Howard thought the magistrate
had done wrong.").
IV.
The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s objections. Plaintiff presents essentially the
same arguments considered and rejected by the magistrate judge. Plaintiff specifically
takes issue with the magistrate judge’s immunity analysis, both under the Eleventh
4

Amendment and qualified immunity. As to Eleventh Amendment immunity, the law is
clear that plaintiff cannot bring a claim for damages against any defendant in their
official capacity. As to qualified immunity, the magistrate judge did not consider this
argument; therefore, there is no finding upon which plaintiff can object. Finally, plaintiff
again asserts that the moving defendants have violated his Eighth Amendment rights.
The magistrate judge, however, carefully explained that the complaint did not contain
allegations sufficient to rise to a viable Eighth Amendment claim against McCauley,
Hamblin or Turner..
Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED. The MJRR is ADOPTED as
the findings and conclusions of the Court. Defendants’ motion to dismiss or for
summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff’s claims
against McCauley, Hamblin and Turner are DISMISSED.
The case continues against Buskirk, Squier, Pandya, Hinsley, Stieve,
Laughhunn, Sharp and Jacob, subject to the pending motion and service issues noted
above.
SO ORDERED.
S/Avern Cohn
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: June 24, 2014
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of
record on this date, June 24, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Sakne Chami
Case Manager, [phone]

5