Bonga v. Abdellatif et al

Filing 90

ORDER Adopting 71 Report and Recommendation for Granting 56 Motion to Dismiss filed by Kenneth Jordan; Adopting 72 Report and Recommendation for Granting 43 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Victor L. Dominguez-Bem, Kyle W. Ploen, M argaret A. Quellette; and Adopting 73 Report and Recommendation for Granting 52 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by William C. Borgerding, and Denying Remaining Portions of 3 Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Jeffrey Bonga. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Jeffrey Lee Bonga,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-13685

Badawi Abdellatif, M.D., et al.,

Sean F. Cox
United States District Court Judge

Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER ADDRESSING
OBJECTIONS TO THREE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ISSUED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Acting pro se, on October 13, 2016, Plaintiff Jeffrey Lee Bonga filed this action against
six different defendants. Defendants one through four, Kenneth Jordan, Victor Dominguez-Bem,
M.D., Kyle Ploehn, P.A., and Margaret Ouellette, P.A., are with the Lakeland Correctional
Facility (“LCF”). Defendant Badawi Abdellatif, M.D. is with the Macomb Correctional Facility
(“MCF”). Plaintiff also sued William C. Borgerding, whose location was not provided.
The matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Anthony Patti for all pretrial proceedings.
(Docket Entry No. 9). The matter recently came before the magistrate judge on several motions
filed by the parties.
In a recent order, this Court ruled that Plaintiff had an absolute right to file the First
Amended Complaint he filed on May 26, 2017. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint added SLF
grievance coordinator K. Parsons and SLF Hearings Investigator L. Scott as Defendants sued in
their individual and official capacities, and corresponding claims for relief as to those new
Defendants.
1

Meanwhile, Magistrate Judge Patti issued three Reports and Recommendations
pertaining to pending motions in this case. This Order addresses Plaintiff’s objections to those
Reports & Recommendations (“R&Rs”).
1.

R&R Recommending That Claims Against Defendant Jordan Be Dismissed With
Prejudice
In an R&R issued on December 11, 2017 (D.E. No. 71), Magistrate Judge Patti addressed

Defendant Jordan’s Motion to Dismiss. As explained in the R&R, the magistrate judge
concludes that: 1) Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Jordan are barred by the applicable statute
of limitations; 2) the continuing violations doctrine does not preserve Plaintiff’s claims against
Defendant Jordan; and 3) Ellis v. Vadlamudi, 568 F.Supp.2d 7778 (E.D. Mich. 2008) does not
help Plaintiff’s cause. The magistrate judge recommends that the Court grant this motion and
dismiss all claims against Defendant Jordan with prejudice.
Plaintiff filed objections to that R&R on January 8, 2018 (D.E. No. 75). In objecting to
the R&R, Plaintiff does not contest that a three-year limitations period applies. Rather, Plaintiff
objects to the magistrate judge’s conclusion that his claims against Defendant Jordan accrued at
the latest on May 15, 2013. Plaintiff faults the magistrate judge for not applying the continuing
violations doctrine, in light of Ellis v. Vadlamudi. In sum, his objections re-state the arguments
he made in opposing Defendant Jordan’s motion.
Defendant Jordan responded to the objections (D.E. No. 78), arguing that the magistrate
judge correctly determined that the continuing violations doctrine does not preserve his claims
against Jordan because “Plaintiff was aware of every element of his potential claim against Dr.
Jordan as of the last date he had contact with Dr. Jordan, May 13, 2013.” (Id. at 2).
The Court concludes that the magistrate judge properly analyzed these issues and concurs
2

with his conclusion that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Jordan are time-barred. As such,
the Court shall adopt this R&R and shall dismiss the claims against Defendant Jordan with
prejudice.
2.

R&R Recommending That Claims Against The LCF Defendants Be Dismissed For
Failure To Exhaust
In an R&R issued on December 11, 2017 (D.E. No. 72), Magistrate Judge Patti addressed

the motion for summary judgment filed by LCF Defendants Dominguez-Bem, Ouellette, and
Ploehn. In that R&R, the magistrate judge recommends that this Court grant this motion for
failure to exhaust claims and dismiss the claims against these Defendants.
Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R were due on December 25, 2017. This Court granted a
request by Plaintiff for a 21-day extension of time to file objections to this R&R. (D.E. No. 77).
But Plaintiff did not draft any objections to this R&R until February 20, 2018. (D.E. No. 85,
Objections filed on February 26, 2018, that were signed and dated by Plaintiff on February 20,
2018). As such, Plaintiff’s objections to this R&R are untimely. Moreover, the Court concurs
with the magistrate judge’s analysis and conclusions in this R&R in any event.
Accordingly, the Court shall adopt this R&R and shall dismiss the claims against these
Defendants.
3.

R&R Recommending That Defendant Borgerding’s Motion For Summary
Judgment Be Granted And Remaining Requests For Injunctive Relief Be Denied
In an R&R issued on December 11, 2017 (D.E. No. 73), Magistrate Judge Patti

recommends that the Court: 1) grant Defendant Borgerding’s Motion for Summary Judgment
and dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against him; and 2) deny the remaining portions of Plaintiff’s
motion for injunctive relief.

3

The extended time for filing objections to this R&R has expired and the docket reflects
that neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Accordingly, the Court shall adopt this R&R
and shall grant summary judgment in favor of Defendant Borgerding and shall deny the
remaining portions of Plaintiff’s pending motion for injunctive relief.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the Court ADOPTS the December 11, 2017 R&Rs (D.E. Nos. 71,
72, 73) and ORDERS that:
1)

Defendant Jordan’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and the claims against Defendant
Jordan are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

2)

the Motion for Summary Judgment brought by Defendants Dominguez-Bem, Ouellette,
and Ploehn is granted, based solely on the failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and
the claims against Defendants Dominguez-Bem, Ploehn, and Ouellette are DISMISSED
for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and

3)

the Court GRANTS Defendant Borgerding’s Motion for Summary Judgment and all
claims against him are DISMISSED for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and

4)

the Court DENIES the remaining portion of Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief
(D.E. No. 3).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2018

s/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
U. S. District Judge

I hereby certify that on March 14, 2018, the foregoing document was served on counsel of record

4

via electronic means and upon Jeffrey Lee Bonga via First Class mail at the address below:
Jeffrey Bonga
271635
EARNEST C. BROOKS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
2500 S. SHERIDAN DRIVE
MUSKEGON HEIGHTS, MI 49444
s/J. McCoy
Case Manager

5