May v. Heyns et al

Filing 95

ORDER adopting 92 Report and Recommendation; Overruling 93 Objections; denying 78 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 83 Motion for Jury Trial; granting 84 Motion for Jury Trial. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TRAVIS MAY,
Case No. 15-10785
Plaintiff,
SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
ARTHUR J. TARNOW

v.
DANIEL HEYNS, ET AL.,

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD

Defendants.
/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [92]; OVERRULING
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS [93]; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT [78]; AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR JURY TRIAL [83, 84]
Plaintiff Travis May, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings claims
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants, clinical manager Julia
Hitchingham, social worker Sheri Pond, and Deputy Warden Willie Riley. On
April 24, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R)
[92] advising the Court to deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [78] and
grant Plaintiff’s Motions for Jury Trial [83, 84]. Plaintiff filed his Objections [93]
to the R&R on May 10, 2017, two days after the deadline.
For the reasons explained below, the Court ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendation [92]. Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation
[93] are OVERRULED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [78] is
DENIED. Plaintiff’s Motions for Jury Trial [83, 84] are GRANTED.
Page 1 of 3

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Court adopts the facts as set forth in the R&R:
May alleges in his amended complaint that “[t]he Michigan Parole Board
issued an order of parole on July 5, 2012 with a projected release date of
February 14, 2013[]” upon the condition that he “enter and complete the
Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) program.” [ECF No. 25,
PgID 123]. After entering the RSAT program, May filed numerous
grievances claiming the conditions of the RSAT program violated MDOC’s
policy directives. [Id.]. He claims that defendants had him terminated from
the program, “in part,” as retaliation for writing those grievances. [Id.]. May
also alleges that he is entitled to protection under the ADA due to his
substance abuse disorder and that, once he “exhibited symptoms of his
disease and dissatisfaction by writing grievances about the RSAT program
conditions,” the defendants terminated him from the program. [Id., PageID
124].
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff appears to raise the following general objections:
 Defendant William Riley should not have been permitted to file a
signed affidavit after initially filing an unsigned affidavit;
 Nowhere on the RSAT removal form does it state that Plaintiff’s
dismissal from the program was due to his own behavior; and
 Defendants’ affidavits do not contain truthful statements.
In his Objections, Plaintiff simply makes conclusory allegations as to his
claim for relief. Plaintiff does not provide any specific explanation as to why the
Magistrate Judge erred, nor does he cite to any legal authority to support his
conclusions. “The filing of vague, general, or conclusory objections does not meet
the requirement of specific objections and is tantamount to complete failure to
object.” Cole v. Yukins, 7 F. Appx. 354, 356 (6th Cir. 2001). “‘[O]bjections
Page 2 of 3

disput[ing] the correctness of the magistrate’s recommendation but fail[ing] to
specify the findings . . . believed in error’ are too general.” Novak v. Prison Health
Services, Inc., No. 13-11065, 2014 WL 988942, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 13, 2014)
(quoting Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995)). Because Plaintiff has
failed to “identify the portions of the magistrate’s recommendation to which
objection is made and the basis for the objection,” the Court will overrule his
objections. Martin v. LaBelle, 7 Fed. Appx. 492, 494 (6th Cir. 2001).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [92] is ADOPTED
and entered as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Plaintiff’s Objections to
the Report and Recommendation [93] are OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [78] is DENIED. Plaintiff’s Motions for Jury Trial [83, 84] are
GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 10, 2017

s/Arthur J. Tarnow
Arthur J. Tarnow
Senior United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3