Haney v. Rhode et al
Filing
114
OPINION and ORDER Accepting and Adopting 110 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Granted in Part and Denied in Part 102 MOTION for Summary Judgment; Granting 78 MOTION for Summary Judgment, and Denying 103 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment - Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (LBar)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DAVID HANEY,
Case No. 16-cv-13227
Plaintiff,
v.
Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds
DR. ROBERT CROMPTON, et al.
Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub
Defendants.
/
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
APRIL 11, 2019 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff David Haney filed this pro se civil rights matter against Nicki Monroe, Addie
Briske, Vicki Jensen, Deborah Swickley, Bridget Ball, Jennifer Russel, and Jack Bellinger,
who are employees of the Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”), and Dr. Robert
Crompton, who is employed by Corizon Health, Inc. Plaintiff claims that Defendants
denied him adequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United
States Constitution.
Pending before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s April 11, 2019 Report and
Recommendation. (ECF No. 110.) The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court
deny Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, grant Defendant Robert Crompton’s
motion for summary judgment, and grant in part and deny in part the MDOC Defendants’
motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff raises two objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 111.) Defendant Crompton opposes Plaintiff’s
objections. (ECF No. 112.) Defendants do not otherwise object to the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation. The Court has conducted a de novo review of Plaintiff’s
1
objections. For the reasons set forth below, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections,
ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation,
GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment, and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the MDOC
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
I.
Standard of Review
This Court performs a de novo review of those portions of the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation to which Plaintiff has objected. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28
U.S.C. § 636(b). The Court need not and does not perform a de novo review of the
report's unobjected-to findings. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Moreover, an
objection that “does nothing more than state a disagreement with a magistrate’s
suggested resolution, or simply summarizes what has been presented before, is not an
‘objection’ as that term is used in this context.” Aldrich v. Bock, 327 F. Supp. 2d. 743, 747
(E.D. Mich. 2004). Indeed, the purpose of an objection to a report and recommendation
is to provide the Court “with the opportunity to consider the specific contentions of the
parties and to correct any errors immediately.” Id. (quoting United States v. Walters, 638
F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981)).
II.
Analysis
A. Plaintiff’s Objection Regarding Record Inaccuracies
Plaintiff alleges that on May 22, 2013 Defendant Crompton denied him several
medications and treatments that were prescribed by the doctors who treated Plaintiff at
McLaren Hospital from May 9-17, 2013. Defendant Crompton testified that he examined
Plaintiff on May 20, 2013 and again on May 22, 2013. Based on his observations during
2
these examinations, Defendant Crompton concluded that “[b]ecause [Plaintiff] was doing
well before his hospital stay and working in food service without restriction, and because
he did not find Ultram helpful, I discontinued Ultram and gabapentin.” (ECF No. 110,
PG.ID. 1269.)
On the record before the Court, the Magistrate Judge found that no reasonable
trier of fact could find Defendant Crompton “disregarded an excessive risk to [Plaintiff’s]
health or safety” by discontinuing the medications and treatments recommended by the
doctors who treated Plaintiff at McLaren Hospital. Plaintiff’s records suggest Defendant
Crompton gave due consideration to those recommendations and simply reached a
different conclusion than the doctors at McLaren. (ECF No. 110, PG.ID. 1269-70.)
Plaintiff challenges the accuracy of the description of Plaintiff’s May 20, 2013 visit
with Defendant Crompton. Specifically, Plaintiff contends Defendant Crompton misstated
facts and falsified evidence to mislead the Court “into believing that [Crompton] followed
a course of treatment, when in fact he did not.” (ECF No. 111, PG.ID. 1278.) Plaintiff
points to alleged inconsistencies in his medical records to support this allegation. (ECF
No. 111, PG.ID. 1276-78.) First, Plaintiff argues the records show incorrect start and stop
dates for Ultram and gabapentin. Id. Plaintiff argues these records indicate that Ultram
was ordered on May 18, 2013, which was a Saturday and not a day Defendant Crompton
worked at the facility. Id. Second, Plaintiff claims that because the records show a
prescribed quantity of zero, the records demonstrate Defendant Crompton never
prescribed Ultram or gabapentin. Id. Plaintiff contends he was never prescribed Ultram,
either while in the hospital or during his visits with Defendant Crompton, and thus
Defendant’s statement that Plaintiff requested to be removed from the medication was
3
false. Plaintiff argues this is a genuine issue of material fact that precludes summary
judgment.
Plaintiff’s objection is overruled. As Defendant points out, the May 20, 2013 note
reflects Defendant Crompton was under the impression Plaintiff had been on Ultram at
the hospital and suggests this information came from Plaintiff himself. Even assuming
Plaintiff is correct and Defendant was mistaken about Ultram, it would have no bearing
on the analysis in the Report and Recommendation regarding his visits on May 20 and
22, 2013. (ECF No. 112, PG.ID. 1307.) The Magistrate Judge concluded “Plaintiff’s
medical
records
suggest
that
Dr.
Crompton
gave
due
consideration
those
recommendations and simply reached a different conclusion than the doctors at
McLaren.” (ECF No. 110, PG.ID. 1269-70.) Neither the specific dates on which the
medications were ordered or stopped, nor any miscommunication between Plaintiff and
Defendant regarding those medications, have any bearing on the conclusion that
Defendant Crompton reached a different medical conclusion than some of his colleagues
may have.
“Where a prisoner alleges only that the medical care he received was
inadequate, “federal courts are generally reluctant to second guess medical judgments.”
Weslake v. Lucas, 537 F.2d 857, 860 n. 5 (6th Cir. 1976).
B. Plaintiff’s Objections Regarding Appointing an Expert
Plaintiff’s objections 2 through 5 argue that the Court should have appointed him
a medical expert. Plaintiff contends an appointed medical expert would have established
the required standard of care owed by Defendant.
Plaintiff’s objections 2 through 5 are overruled. This issue was addressed in the
Order Regarding Procedural and Discovery Motions. (ECF No. 96.) Moreover, even if
4
the objection was appropriate at this stage, Plaintiff is not entitled to a court-appointed
medical expert. See Baker v. Cty. of Missaukee, No. 1:09-CV-1059, 2011 WL 4477154,
at *4 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 26, 2011); Hannah v. United States, 523 F.3d 597, 601 (5th Cir.
2008).
III.
Conclusion
For the above-stated reasons, and for the reasons provided in the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections,
ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, DENIES
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment; GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment, and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the MDOC Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment as follows:
The Court dismisses the claims described in Grievance No. 2013-04-1170.
The Court dismisses the claims described in Grievance No. 2013-05-1269.
The Court dismisses the claims described in Grievance No. 2013-05-1410
against Defendants Bellinger and Ball, but not those against Defendant
Briske and Defendant Jensen.
The Court dismisses the claims described in Grievance No. 2013-08-2127.
SO ORDERED.
s/Nancy G. Edmunds
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge
Dated: July 16, 2019
5
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
on July 16, 2019, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Bartlett
Case Manager
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?