Haney v. Rhode et al

Filing 124

ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation for 116 Report and Recommendation as to defendant Russel - 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 R. Steven
Whalen

Defendants.
/

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
JULY 31, 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 July 31, 2019 Report and
Recommendation. (ECF No. 116.) The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court
enter summary judgment as to Defendant Russel and dismiss all claims against her.
Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 119.)
The Court has conducted a de novo review of Plaintiff’s objection. For the reasons set
forth below, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objection, ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and GRANTS summary judgment in
favor Defendant Russel.
1 

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
In her April 11, 2019 Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge notified

Plaintiff that she intended to recommend that summary judgment be granted as to
Defendant Russel, who has yet to be served with the complaint or waive service, for the
same reasons as the other Defendants. The Magistrate Judge directed Plaintiff to submit
a brief explaining why summary judgment should not be granted as to Defendant Russel.
In the Report and Recommendation now before the Court, the Magistrate Judge states
that she did not receive a brief from Plaintiff, and accordingly, recommends granting
summary judgment in favor of Defendant Russel because the record does not support
Plaintiff’s claim.

2 

Plaintiff objects to the Report and Recommendation and claims that he did in fact
submit a brief opposing summary judgement in favor of Defendant Russel. Plaintiff
contends that he did timely submit a response brief, but that the brief was sent to this
Court as opposed to the magistrate judge.

Plaintiff, however, does not otherwise

specifically object to the Magistrate Judge’s substantive findings concerning Defendant
Russel.
The Court has reviewed the entire record in this matter, including the response
brief attached to Plaintiff’s objection. Regardless of whether Plaintiff properly submitted
a response brief as ordered by the magistrate judge, and as the magistrate judge found,
the record does not support a deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Russel.
Therefore, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to enter
summary judgment as to Defendant Russel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
56(f).
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 objection,
ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and
GRANTS summary judgment in favor of Defendant Russel.
SO ORDERED.
s/Nancy G. Edmunds
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge

Dated: December 4, 2019

3 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
on December 4, 2019, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Lisa Bartlett
Case Manager

4