Haney v. Rhode et al

Filing 59

ORDER adopting 58 Report and Recommendation, granting in part and denying in part 46 Motion to Dismiss and 52 Motion for Summary Judgment - Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (LBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAVID HANEY,
Case No. 16-13227
Plaintiff,
Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds
v.
CORIZON INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER AND OPINION ACCEPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S APRIL 16, 2018
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Currently before the Court is Magistrate Judge Majzoub's April 16, 2018 Report and
Recommendation [58]. The Report and Recommendation addresses Defendants Nicki
Monroe, Addie Briske, Vicki Jensen, Deborah Swickley, Bridget Ball, and Jack Bellinger
(the "MDOC Defendants") motion for summary judgment [52] seeking to dismiss all claims
against them. The Report and Recommendation also addresses Defendants Corizon
Health, Inc. and Robert Crompton, M.D. (the "Corizon Defendants") motion to dismiss [46].
The Court is fully advised in the premises and has reviewed the record and the pleadings.
Neither party has filed objections. “[T]he failure to object to the magistrate judge’s report[]
releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter.” Hall v. Rawal, 0910933, 2012 WL 3639070, at *1 (E.D.Mich. Aug. 24, 2012) (citation omitted). The Court
nevertheless agrees with the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The Court therefore
ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation [58].

It is further orders that the Corizon Defendants' motion to dismiss [46] is GRANTED
IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

The Court dismisses Plaintiff's claims under the

Americans with Disabilities Act, the First Amendment, the Michigan Constitution, MDOC
Policy Directive 03.03.130, and all claims against Corizon Health, Inc. The Court further
dismisses the claims contained in grievances ECF-13-01-0134-12e3 and ECF-12-08-247012d3 because those claims accrued more than three years prior to the date of Plaintiff's
complaint.
It is further ordered that the MDOC Defendants' motion for summary judgment [52] is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court denies MDOC Defendants' motion
for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim in order to permit the
parties to take discovery. The Court denies MDOC Defendants' motion for summary
judgment as to Plaintiff's claims against the MDOC Defendants in their official capacities
to the extent that those claims request prospective relief. Finally the Court grants MDOC
Defendants' motion and dismisses Plaintiff's claims against MDOC Defendants for failure
to exhaust administrative remedies except those raised in the following grievances:
(1) Claims alleged in ECF-2013-08-2127-12d1 may proceed against Defendants
Monroe and Jensen
(2) Claims alleged in ECF-2013-07-1768-12f may proceed against Defendant Monroe
(3) Claims alleged in ECF-2013-05-1410-12e3 may proceed against Defendants
Jensen, Briske, Russell, Bellinger, and Ball
(4) Claims alleged in ECF-2013-05-1269-12e1 may proceed against Defendants
Swickley and Briske
(5) Claims alleged in ECF-2013-04-1170-12e4 may proceed against Defendant Briske
2

SO ORDERED.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge
Dated: May 21, 2018
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
on May 21, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Bartlett
Case Manager

3