Glenn v. Corizon Medical, Inc.

Filing 92

ORDER Overruling Plaintiff's 90 Objections and Closing Case. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (BSau)

Case 2:17-cv-10972-GCS-APP ECF No. 92 filed 07/09/20

PageID.1044

Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MYRON C. GLENN,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 17-10972
vs.
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH
CORIZON HEALTHCARE, INC.,
DR. HARESH B. PANDYA, M.D.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS AND CLOSING CASE [ECF No. 90]
Plaintiff, Myron Glenn, a state prisoner proceeding in pro per, filed the
instant lawsuit against defendants Corizon Medical, Inc. and Dr. Haresh B.
Pandya, alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in
violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (ECF
Nos. 1, 12) Ultimately, the Court granted summary judgment to both
Corizon and Dr. Pandya and dismissed each from the lawsuit. (ECF Nos.
67, 73, 75-76, 82) The Court granted summary judgment to Corizon on
the basis that plaintiff failed to establish liability under Monell v. Dept. of
Soc. Serv. of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), because nothing
in the record demonstrated that Corizon had “a policy or custom of
indifference so ‘widespread, permanent and settled as to have the force of
-1-

Case 2:17-cv-10972-GCS-APP ECF No. 92 filed 07/09/20

PageID.1045

Page 2 of 8

law’ that led to Plaintiff’s claimed injury[.]” (ECF No. 67, PageID.779; see
also ECF No. 73, PageID.850) The Court also concluded that plaintiff had
not fully exhausted his claim against Dr. Pandya, and that the claim was
time-barred, Dr. Pandya having retired from the MDOC on July 31, 2013.
(ECF No. 76, PageID.873, 879-880, 887; ECF No. 82)
Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint
seeking to add four new defendants and additional allegations of “harmful
acts” against the original defendants. (ECF No. 81) The new defendants
were described by plaintiff as utilization managers employed by Corizon
and responsible for approving requests from medical providers to assess
state prisoners for orthopedic boots. The Court referred plaintiff’s motion
to amend to the magistrate judge, who issued an opinion and order denying
the motion on April 21, 2020. (ECF No. 86) The matter is now before the
Court on plaintiff’s objections to the magistrate judge’s order.
Magistrate judges have the statutory authority to rule directly on nondispositive pretrial motions. A magistrate judge's ruling on a nondispositive motion cannot be reversed unless it was clearly erroneous or
contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); Brown v.
Wesley's Quaker Maid, Inc., 771 F.2d 952, 954 (6th Cir.1985).
The magistrate judge found that plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a

-2-

Case 2:17-cv-10972-GCS-APP ECF No. 92 filed 07/09/20

PageID.1046

Page 3 of 8

second amended complaint was unjustifiably delayed. Key to the
magistrate judge’s determination was the fact that plaintiff’s pleadings
demonstrated that he became aware of the individuals he sought to add, at
the latest, in March 2018, approximately 18 months before he filed his
motion to amend:
Plaintiff himself referenced and discussed those individuals
throughout his response to Corizon’s motion [for summary
judgment] (ECF No. 47, PageID.308-309, 321-322, 325-327,
338), objections to my report and recommendation (ECF No.
70), and motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 74). Yet, he
waited 18 months, until September 2019, well after the Court
had already decided Corizon’s motion for summary judgment
(ECF No. 75), to file the instant motion for leave to add the
above individuals to his lawsuit. This delay was not only per
se “undue,” but the virtual certainty of a third round of summary
judgment motions, in a case that is already over three years
old, places “an unwarranted burden on the Court.” Comm.
Money Ctr., Inc., 508 F.3d at 347.

(ECF No. 86, PageID.1023) The magistrate judge also concluded that
granting plaintiff’s motion would cause significant prejudice to the
individuals plaintiff sought to add by amendment, as well as to the Court.
Plaintiff raises eight issues in his appeal. The objections fall into four
categories which the Court will consider together.
First, plaintiff contends that he was diligent in meeting all filing
deadlines and emphasizes that he was not dilatory in failing to seek leave
to amend his complaint earlier in the process. Plaintiff highlights the
-3-

Case 2:17-cv-10972-GCS-APP ECF No. 92 filed 07/09/20

PageID.1047

Page 4 of 8

obstacles and frustration he faced as a pro se litigant trying to take
discovery, respond to motions and orders, and navigate the litigation
process. Plaintiff explains that he was simultaneously litigating a
retaliation lawsuit in another district while he was litigating this case. He
also was limited in his access to the law library. These are what the
magistrate judge referred to as “the normal hazards associated with
litigation.” [ECF No. 86, PageID.1024] Furthermore, a review of the
docket in this case shows that plaintiff made no fewer than six requests for
extensions of time to file various pleadings, each of which was granted by
the Court. [ECF Nos. 34, 37, 64, 68, 78, 88]
Plaintiff blames some of his delay on Dr. Pandya for taking over 18
months to respond to service. However, this fact has little to no bearing on
plaintiff’s responsibility to pursue claims he believes he has against other
Corizon employees. He also argues that the magistrate judge was
incorrect in concluding that his amputation surgery and its complications
over the months following surgery did not impact his ability to seek leave to
file his amended complaint earlier. Plaintiff makes a similar argument
regarding the time it took to exhaust his grievances against the four
Corizon employees. The magistrate judge stated that he could find no
support for the allegation that plaintiff’s numerous hospitalizations and

-4-

Case 2:17-cv-10972-GCS-APP ECF No. 92 filed 07/09/20

PageID.1048

Page 5 of 8

exhaustion of grievances prevented him from filing his motion to amend
earlier than 18 months after learning the identities of the defendants he
sought to add. None of this is to say that plaintiff’s allegations of suffering
are not credible or that it should have been easy for him to navigate the
legal process. At the same time, neither plaintiff’s medical condition and
complications, nor the procedural requirements of litigation, justify the
length of delay that occurred in this case.
“When amendment is sought at a late stage in the litigation, there is
an increased burden to show justification for failing to move earlier.” 500
Assoc., Inc. v. Vermont American Corp., 496 F. App’x 589, 593 (6th Cir.
2012) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The Court finds that the
magistrate judge’s factual findings addressed in these objections are not
clearly erroneous nor are his legal conclusions are contrary to law.
Second, plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s characterization
that he waited until final resolution of the case before he filed his motion to
amend. The motion for leave to file a second amended complaint was
filed September 10, 2019. While the Court did not adopt the report and
recommendation granting summary judgment in favor of Dr. Pandya until
September 20, 2019, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of
Corizon three months earlier, on June 4, 2019, with the denial of plaintiff’s

-5-

Case 2:17-cv-10972-GCS-APP ECF No. 92 filed 07/09/20

PageID.1049

Page 6 of 8

motion for reconsideration. As the magistrate judge aptly observed, “once
Plaintiff knew, thought he knew, or should have known who was
responsible for his injuries, he needed to seek leave to add them, rather
than wait to see how things would pan out with the existing cast of
defendants.” [ECF No. 86; PageID.1025] The Court does not find that
the magistrate judge’s factual finding is clearly erroneous or that his legal
conclusion is contrary to law.
Third, plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s conclusion that
allowing him to amend his complaint will prejudice defendants. The
magistrate judge reasoned that Corizon had already conducted discovery
and expended resources to successfully argue its motion for summary
judgment. Allowing plaintiff to add four new Corizon employees as
defendants would require Corizon to conduct additional discovery, prepare
new defenses on behalf of the four individuals and file additional dispositive
motions. While the four employees were discussed by both parties in the
pleadings related to Corizon’s motion for summary judgment, they were not
parties at that time so Corizon was not defending them against any
allegations. The Court finds that the magistrate judge’s assessment of
prejudice against Corizon is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

-6-

Case 2:17-cv-10972-GCS-APP ECF No. 92 filed 07/09/20

PageID.1050

Page 7 of 8

Fourth, plaintiff argues that permitting him to amend his complaint will
not place an undue burden on the court. The magistrate judge relied on
the procedural posture of the case, where discovery is complete and two
motions for summary judgment have already been litigated. Granting
plaintiff leave to add four new defendants would require a third round of
dispositive motions in a case that is already over three years old. The
Court finds that the magistrate judge’s conclusion that amendment would
place “an unwarranted burden on the Court,” [ECF No. 86; PageID.1023
(citing Comm. Money Ctr., Inc. v. Illinois Union Ins. Co., 508 F.3d 327, 347
(6th Cir. 2007))] is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Now, therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s objections to the magistrate
judge’s opinion and order denying his motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint are OVERRULED.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the above captioned case
is CLOSED.
Dated: July 9, 2020
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-7-

Case 2:17-cv-10972-GCS-APP ECF No. 92 filed 07/09/20

PageID.1051

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
July 9, 2020, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also on
Myron Glenn #188376, Carson City Correctional Facility,
10274 Boyer Road, Carson City, MI 48811.
s/Brianna Sauve
Deputy Clerk

-8-

Page 8 of 8