Alexander v. Haas et al

Filing 46

ORDER adopting 45 Report and Recommendation, Granting 35 defendants Brown-Brandon and Marutiak's Motion to Dismiss, and Granting 38 defendant Haas' Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MYLES ALEXANDER #862651,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 14-14629
HONORABLE GEORGE CARAM STEEH

v.
RANDALL HAAS, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION (DOC. 45), GRANTING DEFENDANTS
BROWN-BRANDON AND MARUTIAK’S MOTION TO
DISMISS (DOC. 35), AND GRANTING DEFENDANT HAAS’
MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 38)
Plaintiff, a prison inmate in the custody of the Michigan Department of
Corrections (“MDOC”), filed the instant civil rights action against various employees at
MDOC’s G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility (“Cotton Facility”), where Plaintiff was
previously incarcerated. These defendants are Warden Randall Haas, Deputy Wardens
Cascelia Brown-Brandon and Fredeane Artis, Administrative Hearing Officer Michael
Marutiak, and inspectors James Roth and K. Howard. In short, Plaintiff alleges that
Roth and Howard falsely implicated him in a contraband-smuggling incident. Haas,
Brown-Brandon, Artis, and Marutiak believed the false representations “to be true and
had no reasons to believe that [they] were untrue.” (Compl. ¶ 15). Based on Roth’s
and Howard’s false representations, Haas, Brown-Brandon, Artis, and Marutiak
“place[d] plaintiff in segregation. Had they known the true facts[,] they would not have
taken such action.” (Id.). The Court previously issued an order dismissing defendants
-1-

Roth, Artis, and Howard. Thus, only defendants Haas, Brown-Brandon, and Marutiak
remain.
Now before the Court are Brown-Brandon and Marutiak’s motion to dismiss (Doc.
35) and Haas’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 38). The Court referred the defendants motions
to Magistrate Judge Whalen for a report and recommendation (“R&R”). In his R&R, the
Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court grant both motions. The Magistrate
Judge found Brown-Brandon, Marutiak, and Haas all have qualified immunity, because
“[b]y Plaintiff’s own admission, these Defendants did not knowingly violate any clearly
established right, nor did they act unreasonably—either objectively or
subjectively—under the circumstances.” (R&R at 7). The Magistrate Judge further
explained that Plaintiff’s claims against Brown-Brandon, Marutiak, and Haas in their
official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
Plaintiff has not objected to the R&R. The R&R specifically stated that any
objections must be filed within fourteen days of service of the R&R. Moreover, the R&R
specifically stated that a failure to file objections would constitute a waiver of any further
right to appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); Cowherd v. Million, 380
F.3d 909, 912 (6th Cir. 2004). Finding the R&R to be well-reasoned, the Court hereby
ACCEPTS the result recommended therein. Accordingly, Brown-Brandon and
Marutiak’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 35) is GRANTED, and Haas’s motion to dismiss
(Doc. 38) is also GRANTED. The complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 1, 2016
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-2-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
September 1, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and
also on Myles Danard Alexander #862651,
Carson City Correctional Facility, 10274 Boyer Road,
Carson City, MI 48811.
s/Barbara Radke
Deputy Clerk

-3-