Anderson v. True et al

Filing 40

OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFFS OBJECTIONS 33 , ACCEPTINGTHE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 28 , AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 23 . Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TBan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

DEXTER ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 15-cv-11703
B. TRUE, Associate Warden in his
individual capacity,
ARDETTA MOODY, Unit Manager in her
individual capacity,
MATTHEW BURNETT, Case Manager in
his individual capacity,
ANDRE MCCLATCHEY, Counselor in his
individual capacity,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DAVID R. GRAND

Defendant.
/
OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS [33], ACCEPTING
THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [28], AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS [23]
I. INTRODUCTION
Dexter Anderson (“Plaintiff”) brought this action against B. True, Ardetta
Moody, Matthew Burnett, and Andre McClatchey (“Defendants”) pursuant to
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
388 (1971) on May 11, 2015. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated
his First Amendment rights by retaliating against him for filing an administrative
grievance while incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution (“FCI”) in
-1-

Milan, Michigan. Id. This Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge David R.
Grand on May 18, 2015. Dkt. No. 6.
On November 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings, or in the Alternative, to Strike Defendants’ Answer. Dkt. No. 23. The
Magistrate Court issued a Report and Recommendation on February 26, 2016. Dkt.
No. 28. Magistrate Judge Grand recommended that the Plaintiff’s motion be
denied. Plaintiff filed an objection to the report on March 28, 2016. Dkt. No. 33.
For the reasons discussed herein, the objection is OVERRULED, and Magistrate
Judge Grand’s Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED.
II. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that the Federal Bureau of Prison
employees and the Defendants violated his First Amendment rights while Plaintiff
was incarcerated at the FCI in Milan, Michigan. Plaintiff alleges in his complaint
that because he filed grievances, the defendants retaliated against him and
transferred him to another prison in Danbury, CT. Dkt. No. 7, ¶3–4.
On November 3, 2015, Defendants timely filed an answer to Plaintiff’s
complaint, denying Plaintiff’s allegations. Dkt. No. 21. On November 27, 2015, in
the midst of ongoing discovery, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings or, in the Alternative, to Strike Defendants’ Answer. Dkt. No. 23.

-2-

III. LAW AND ANALYSIS
Where a party has objected to portions of a Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, the Court conducts a de novo review of those portions. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b); Lyons v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 351 F. Supp. 2d 659, 661 (E.D.
Mich. 2004).
A. Objection No. 1–4: Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s
findings of genuine issues of material fact.
Plaintiff’s first four objections can be grouped together as objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s finding that genuine issues of fact exist. All four of the
objections argue that the Magistrate Judge erred in accepting Defendants’ denials
as sufficient to survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings. These objections
are without merit.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), a motion for judgment on
the pleadings may be granted where “no material issue of fact exists and the party
making the motion is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” JP Morgan Chase
Bank, N.A. v. Winget, 510 F.3d 577, 581 (6th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation and
citation omitted). “For the purposes of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, all
well-pleaded material allegations of the pleadings of the opposing party must be
taken as true, and the motion may be granted only if the moving party is
nevertheless clearly entitled to judgment.” Id. The Court “ ‘need not’ accept as true

-3-

legal conclusions or unwarranted factual inferences.” Id. at 581–82 (quoting Mixon
v. Ohio, 193 F.3d 389, 400 (6th Cir. 1999)).
Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ denials in their answer are insufficient to
create a genuine issue of material fact under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Dkt. No. 33 at 3–4
(Pg. ID No. 264–65) (“Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56, summary
judgment is proper when the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”).
However, Plaintiff has not brought a motion for summary judgment under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56. Plaintiff has moved for judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(c).
While a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment requires more than a mere
denial of the adverse party’s pleadings, a Rule 12 motion for judgment on the
pleadings requires the Court to accept the non-moving party’s denials as truth. JC
Morgan Chase Bank, 510 F.3d at 581. Therefore, Defendants’ denials of Plaintiff’s
allegations create genuine issues of facts. Accordingly, these objections are
overruled.
B. Objection No. 5: The Defendants’ denials fail to address the
substance of his allegations.
Plaintiff next objects to the Magistrate Court’s finding that the Defendants’
answer sufficiently denied the Plaintiff’s allegations. Plaintiff argues that most of

-4-

Defendants’ answers “fail to address the substance of his allegations.” Dkt. No. 33
at 8 (Pg. ID No. 269). This objection is also without merit.
The Court “may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). In
responding to a pleading, “a party must state in short and plain terms its defenses
to each claim asserted against it; and admit or deny the allegations asserted against
it by an opposing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(1)(A), (B). “A denial must fairly
respond to the substance of the allegation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(2). “A party that
lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of an
allegation must so state, and the statement has the effect of a denial.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8(b)(5).
As the Magistrate Court noted, the Defendants’ answer clearly meets the
standard set by Rule 8(b). All of the contested statements in the Defendants’
answer either make outright denials, or state that the Defendants lack sufficient
information to confirm or deny the allegation in Plaintiff’s complaint. See Dkt. No.
21. Defendants are not required by Rule 8(b) to provide any further information.
Plaintiff presents no law demonstrating that short and plain statements of denial no
longer comply with Rule 8. Accordingly, this objection is overruled.

-5-

C. Objection No. 6: Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s report
that the Defendants need not establish its “affirmative defenses” at
this stage.
Finally, Plaintiff objects to the Report’s finding that the “defendants need
not establish its ‘affirmative defenses’ at this stage . . .”. Dkt. No. 33 at 8 (Pg. ID
No. 269). Plaintiff’s objection acknowledges that “defendants need not completely
establish its affirmative defenses,” but argues that the Magistrate Court erred
because “defendants have provided nothing to support why the Court should
consider these affirmative defenses.” This objection is also without merit.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) requires “[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any
pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading if one is required.”
Defendants have stated their affirmative defenses of qualified immunity and
exhaustion within their answer, consistent with Rule 12(b) and Rule 7(a). See Dkt.
No. 21.
Plaintiff argues that under the allegations in the Complaint, the affirmative
defenses cannot survive. Dkt. No. 33 at 9 (Pg. ID No. 270). But this argument still
fails to comprehend that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a
defendant to prove his theory of the case before discovery has been completed.
Under Rule 12(b), a plain statement of the affirmative defense is all that is
necessary. Accordingly, this objection is overruled.

-6-

IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the Plaintiff’s Objection [33] is
OVERRULED, the Magistrate Court’s Report and Recommendation [28] is
ACCEPTED, and the Plaintiff’s Motion [23] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 16, 2016
Detroit, MI

/s/Gershwin A Drain
HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
United States District Court Judge

-7-