Boyer et al v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al

Filing 26

ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's 22 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul J. Komives. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KATHY A. BOYER (#418448) and
JAMES W. BOYER,
Plaintiffs,
CASE NO. 2:14-CV-11503
JUDGE BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL J. KOMIVES
v.
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
DANIEL H. HEYNS,
MILLICENT WARREN and
ROBERT LACY,
Defendants.
/
ORDER GRANTING AUGUST 6, 2014 STIPULATED MOTION (Doc. Ent. 22) TO
AMEND PLAINTIFFS’ APRIL 14, 2014 VERIFIED COMPLAINT (Doc. Ent. 1)
A.

Plaintiffs’ April 14, 2014 Verified Complaint and Jury Demand
Kathy A. Boyer (#418448) was discharged from the Michigan Department of Corrections

(MDOC) on January 24, 2014. See www.michigan.gov/corrections, “Offender Search.” On
April 14, 2014, Boyer and her husband, James W. Boyer, via counsel, filed the instant lawsuit
against the MDOC; Daniel H. Heyns, Director of the MDOC; Millicent Warren, Warden of the
Women’s Huron Valley Correctional Facility (WHV); and Robert Lacy, described as WHV’s
Chief Medical Officer. Doc. Ent. 1.
Plaintiffs allege that Kathy Boyer was incarcerated at WHV from July 2011 to July 2012.
The allegations underlying the complaint stem from a March 14, 2012 fall. See Doc. Ent. 1 ¶¶ 768. Plaintiffs claim that (I) “delayed access to healthcare and unsafe living conditions violate the
Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983[,]” and (II) “loss of

consortium as to plaintiff James Boyer.” Doc. Ent. 1 ¶¶ 69-83, 84-89.
Defendants have filed answers and affirmative defenses. See Doc. Entries 11, 12 & 16.
B.

Plaintiffs’ August 6, 2014 Stipulated Motion to Amend Plaintiffs’ Verified
Complaint
Judge Friedman has referred this case to me for pretrial matters. Doc. Ent. 17. On

August 6, 2014, plaintiffs filed a stipulated motion (Doc. Ent. 22) to amend plaintiffs’ verified
complaint (Doc. Ent. 1). By this motion, plaintiffs seek to correct errors in Paragraphs One and
Seventy-Seven of their April 14, 2014 original complaint. Doc. Ent. 22 ¶ 5. Furthermore,
plaintiffs represent that counsel for each defendant concurred, so long as changes were limited to
Paragraphs One and Seventy-Seven. Doc. Ent. 22 ¶ 6.
C.

Order
Upon consideration, plaintiffs’ August 6, 2014 stipulated motion (Doc. Ent. 22) to amend

plaintiffs’ verified complaint (Doc. Ent. 1) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs SHALL file their proposed
verified first amended complaint and jury demand (Doc. Ent. 22-1) forthwith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The attention of the parties is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which provides a period of
fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order within which to file objections
for consideration by the district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Dated: September 10, 2014

s/Paul J. Komives
PAUL J. KOMIVES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent to parties of record on September 10, 2014,
electronically and/or by U.S. mail.
s/Michael Williams
Case Manager for the
Honorable Paul J. Komives