Annabel v. Heyns et al

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFFS OBJECTIONS (Doc. 26) ANDADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 25) AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 19) AND DISMISSING CASE Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT ANNABEL,
Plaintiff,

Case No.14-11337

vs.

HON. AVERN COHN

DANIEL HEYNS, PAUL KLEE, LEE
McROBERTS, S. CAMPBELL, STEVEN
KINDINGER, B. EVERS, and C. CONDON,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS (Doc. 26)
AND
ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 25)
AND
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 19)
AND DISMISSING CASE
I.
This is a prisoner civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff Robert
Annabel, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint under §1983, alleging violations of his
Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiff also
asserts claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et
seq., and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (RA), 29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq. Defendants are:
Daniel Heyns, Paul Klee, Lee McRoberts, Sherman Campbell, Steven Kindinger, Brian
Evers, and Louis Condon, all of whom are employed by the Michigan Department of
Corrections. In broad terms, plaintiff alleges that he takes psychotropic medications to
treat a diagnosed mental illness, which renders him particularly sensitive to heat. . He

further asserts that the defendants failed to accommodate this sensitivity and thereby
placed him in danger of heat stroke and other heat-related complications. The matter
was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial proceedings. See Doc. 7.
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 19). The magistrate
judge issued a report and recommendation (Doc. 24), recommending that the motion be
granted.
Before the Court are plaintiff’s objections to the MJRR. For the reasons that
follow, the objections will be overruled, the MJRR will adopted, and defendants’ motion
will be granted.
II.
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
2

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.").
III.
Plaintiff raises four objections. In his first objection, plaintiff suggests that the
magistrate judge did not accept his factual assertion that he suffers from a heat related
illness due to his psychotropic medication. The magistrate judge did accept plaintiff’s
assertion but concluded that the record did not contain any evidence to support his
assertion, i.e. plaintiff submitted no medical record verifying that he was ever diagnosed
with a heat related illness nor any treatment notes documenting that he had been
treated for a heat related illness. The record contains only plaintiff’s assertion that he
was on medication which impaired his ability to heat. That is insufficient to show a
genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff suffers from a serious health
condition. Moreover, plaintiff does not offer any evidence in his objections. Thus, this
objection lacks merit.
In his second objection, plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s conclusion that
defendants were not aware that plaintiff had a health condition. This objection does not
carry the day. The record fails to show that any of the defendants were aware of
plaintiff’s alleged condition or that they were aware of facts from which they could have
drawn a reasonable inference that he had a serious health condition.
In his third objection, plaintiff says that qualified immunity does not bar his claim
for injunctive relief which is based on a facial challenge to the prison policy directive
regarding portable fans. The magistrate judge did not engage in a qualified immunity
3

analysis of plaintiff’s challenge to the policy directive but rather concluded, correctly,
that the applicable policy directive is not facially unconstitutional. This objection is
overruled.
Plaintiff’s final objection concerns his ADA and RA claims, which the magistrate
judge concluded must fail because of a lack of evidence that any of the defendants
denied him a benefit or discriminated against him on account of his alleged disability. In
his objections he says he is being denied the services and benefits of mental health
treatment and prisoner housing. However, he offers no evidence of this nor has he
shown that other similarly situated persons were treated differently than him.
IV.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s objections are
OVERRULED. The MJRR is ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court.
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s motion to stay
discovery (Doc. 28) is DENIED AS MOOT.
This case is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
S/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: September 21, 2015
Detroit, Michigan

4