Bennett v. MDOC et al

Filing 61

ORDER (1) Overruling 52 Objections to 50 Report and Recommendation, (2) Adopting the 50 Report and Recommendation as the Opinion of the Court, (3) Granting Defendant Michigan Department of Corrections' 37 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, and (4) Dismissing Claims Against Defendant Michigan Department of Corrections Without Prejudice. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CARL BENNETT #298713,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-cv-14465
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
MICHIGAN DEPTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
JACKSON ALLEGIANCE HOSPITAL, and
DOCTOR MAHENDER MACHA,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER (1) OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (ECF #52) TO REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION (ECF #50); (2) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AS THE OPINION OF THE COURT; (3)
GRANTING DEFENDANT MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED
COMPLAINT (ECF #37); AND (4) DISMISSIMING CLAIMS AGAINST
DEFENDANT MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
In this action, Plaintiff Carl Bennett, an inmate in the Michigan Department
of Corrections (“MDOC”), asserts, among other things, constitutional and federal
statutory claims based upon the MDOC’s alleged indifference to his §medical
condition and failure to accommodate his disability. On December 19, 2016, the
MDOC moved, pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 42
U.S.C. §1997e(a), to dismiss Bennett’s Amended Complaint on the ground that
Bennett failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (See ECF #37.) The motion

1

was referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge. Following the completion of briefing,
the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which he suggested
that the Court grant the motion. (See ECF #50.) Plaintiff has filed objections to the
R & R. (See ECF #52.) For the reasons explained below, the objections are
OVERRULED.
The R & R is thorough and thoughtful and explains in great detail why
Bennett’s claims against the MDOC fail for lack of exhaustion. Rather than repeat
the points made by the Magistrate Judge, the Court adopts the R & R as the Opinion
of the Court.
Bennett’s objections fail to show any error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis
or conclusion. Bennett first argues that the MDOC failed to present sufficient
evidence that he failed to file the required Step III Grievance. The MDOC submitted
an affidavit from Richard D. Russell, Manager, Office of Legal Affairs, in which
Mr. Russell (1) explained how the MDOC processes and tracks filed grievances and
(2) stated that a review of the MDOC’s grievance tracking database revealed that
Bennett had not filed a grievance related to the claims asserted in this action. Bennett
says that the affidavit is not enough, but the case law he relies upon does not support
that argument. In Harris v. Scott, 2016 WL 4470786 (W.D. Mich. 2016), the court
held that a printout of the grievance database report – that was not accompanied by
an affidavit explaining the grievance process and the operation of the grievance

2

tracking system – did not demonstrate an inmate’s failure to exhaust. In Jackson v.
Snyder, 2014 WL 4983672 (W.D. Mich. 2014), the court denied a motion for
summary judgment based upon exhaustion because there was a dispute over whether
the defendants prevented the plaintiff from exhausting his remedies by raiding his
cell and destroying his legal materials – an allegation that the defendants did not
rebut through affidavits. Neither of the cases cited by Bennett supports his argument
that the MDOC here made a sufficient showing that he failed to file the required Step
III grievance. Bennett has failed to show any error in the Magistrate Judge’s
conclusion that the MDOC presented sufficient evidence to support its exhaustion
defense. (Notably, as described below, Bennett has not presented any competent
evidence that he did exhaust or attempt to exhaust that could conceivably require
evaluation by a fact-finder. The only competent evidence concerning whether
Bennett filed a Step III grievance is that submitted by the MDOC.)
Bennett next claims that the Court should decline to dismiss the MDOC
because he (Bennett) has submitted evidence that the MDOC frustrated his ability to
file a Step III grievance. Bennett seems to contend that the MDOC gave him some
sort of “run-around” or induced him to use an incorrect form for the filing of his
grievance. But Bennett does not attest to the truth of this contention in a sworn
affidavit. Instead, his attorney has submitted an affidavit in which she says that
Bennett told her in a privileged (and unsworn) letter that he got the “run-around”

3

from the MDOC when he tried to file his Step III grievance. (See ECF #52-3.) But
counsel’s affidavit – relaying Bennett’s unsworn hearsay statement – is not
competent evidence of what happened to Bennett. And counsel has not offered any
reason as to why she could not obtain an affidavit from Bennett. According to
counsel, she received Bennett’s letter on or about January 19, 2017. She prepared
her affidavit on August 7, 2017. (Id.) She has not explained why she did not obtain
an affidavit from Bennett during that seven-month period. Simply put, Bennett has
not offered sufficient evidence to create any sort of factual dispute concerning
whether the MDOC frustrated his ability to file a Step III grievance, nor has he
offered a sufficient explanation for his failure to present such evidence.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

Bennett’s objections to the R & R (ECF #52) are OVERRULED.

2.

The R & R is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court;

3.

Defendant MDOC’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF #37) is GRANTED;

4.

Bennett’s claims against the MDOC are DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: September 25, 2017

4

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on September 25, 2017, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

5