Hills v. Sessions et al

Filing 64

OPINION AND ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation 60 . Signed by District Judge Laurie J. Michelson. (EKar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DERRICK L. HILLS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-10858
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

JEFFERSON SESSIONS
and VERA KAYE CUNNINGHAM,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [60]
Derrick Hills filed a pro se civil rights suit in 2017 that challenged the conditions of his
confinement at the Community Treatment Center (“CTC”), a halfway house. (ECF No. 1.) But
after being released from the halfway house, Hills sought to amend his complaint based on a new
retaliation theory. (ECF No. 18.) Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford issued a report and
recommendation that Hills improperly amended his complaint and, therefore, the case should be
dismissed as moot. (ECF No. 41, PageID.119.) Soon after, Hills moved to amend his complaint
based on a theory of First Amendment retaliation. (ECF No. 42.) Namely, he alleged that defendant
Vera Kaye Cunningham, an employee at the facility, “forcibly jailed” him in response to the filing
of this lawsuit. (Id.) This Court granted Hills’ motion to amend. (ECF No. 47.) See generally Hills
v. Sessions, No. 17-10858, 2019 WL 668116 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 19, 2019).
Then, Cunningham moved for summary judgment. (ECF No. 58.) In that motion,
Cunningham attached a “release in full of all claims and rights,” signed by Hills and dated July 31,
2018. (ECF No. 58, PageID.174.) The release states that Hills “forever discharge[d]” the halfway
house and its employees from any claims related to “civil rights violations, constitutional

violations, [and] State or Federal statutes.” (Id.) The language explicitly covered actions that arose
out of his stay at the CTC and the events mentioned in this lawsuit, but not limited to those events.
(Id.) In exchange, the facility agreed to pay $6,000 to Hills. (Id.) So Cunningham argues that the
release signed by Hills means that she cannot be liable for the claim in the amended complaint.
(ECF No. 58.) Hills did not respond to her motion.
The magistrate judge, in a second report and recommendation, agreed with Cunningham.
(ECF No. 60.) Because the settlement from July 2018 was unambiguous and enforceable as to
Cunningham, no genuine dispute existed regarding the First Amendment retaliation claim, she
wrote. (Id.) The magistrate judge also recommended dismissal of former United States Attorney
General Jefferson Sessions—the other defendant—because the amended complaint did not allege
claims against him and because he had never been served. (Id.)
In response, Hills only filed a one-sentence objection: “Plaintiff at no time divested his
right to sue for retaliation.” (ECF No. 61.) He made no other objections.
This Court performs a de novo review of the objected-to portions of a report and
recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir.
2001). Regarding the other findings, the Court need not and does not take a fresh look. See Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); Garrison v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, No. 10-13990, 2012 WL
1278044, at *8 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 16, 2012).
First, the Court adopts the unobjected-to recommendation to dismiss Sessions from this
litigation.
Second, the Court overrules Hills’ objection and adopts the recommendation to grant
summary judgment for Cunningham. “If the language of the release is unambiguous, it must be
construed as written.” Kellogg Co. v. Sabhlok, 471 F.3d 629, 632 (6th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).

2

The July 2018 agreement clearly and unambiguously releases employees of the CTC from any
constitutional claims that Hills had at the time of the lawsuit and thereafter; in exchange, Hills
received $6,000. Cunningham was an employee covered by the agreement, and the amended
complaint alleges a First Amendment violation. Plainly, then, the language of the release protects
Cunningham from the claim in this suit.
Therefore, Hills’ objection to the report and recommendation is OVERRULED and the
report and recommendation (ECF No. 60) is ADOPTED. Sessions is DISMISSED from the suit
and Cunningham’s unopposed motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Finally, Hills’
motion for a scheduling order (ECF No. 62) is DENIED AS MOOT. The case is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 28, 2020
s/Laurie J. Michelson
LAURIE J. MICHELSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the
attorneys and/or parties of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on January 28, 2020.
s/Erica Karhoff
Case Manager to
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson

3