Taylor v. Corizon Medical Corporation et al

Filing 60

ORDER Adopting 58 Report and Recommendation Granting 28 Motion to Dismiss filed by Corizon Medical Corporation, Dismissing Complaint and Denying 59 Motion for Monetary Award filed by Maurice Taylor. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (SPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MAURICE TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,

Case Number 17-12271
Honorable David M. Lawson
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

v.
CORIZON MEDICAL CORPORATION,
Defendant.
/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DISMISSING COMPLAINT,
AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR MONETARY AWARD
Plaintiff Maurice Taylor, a Michigan prisoner, filed a pro se complaint against defendant
Corizon Medical Corporation (“Corizon”), a healthcare provider contracted to furnish medical
services at the Thumb Correctional Facility, alleging that Corizon violated his Eighth Amendment
right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment when Corizon denied him a cataract operation
on his right eye. The plaintiff alleged that Corizon maliciously has deprived him of adequate
medical treatment of his glaucoma and cataracts for several years. The Court referred this case to
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti for pretrial management.
Presently before the Court is the report issued on August 8, 2018 by Judge Patti under 28
U.S.C. § 636(b), recommending that the Court grant the defendant’s motion to dismiss the
complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, or alternatively, dismiss the case under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A)(v) based on the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the
Court’s order to execute authorizations for the release of his complete medical records from the
Michigan Department of Corrections. The report stated that the parties to this action could object
to and seek review of the recommendation within fourteen days of service of the report.

On August 20, 2018, the plaintiff filed a document styled as a “motion for monetary award
in the amount sought and treatment sought,” renewing his request for relief and asserting that “by
policy no exhaustion is required regarding serious medical needs, as in this instance.” See [dkt.
#59]. The Court generously will treat the plaintiff’s pro se filing as a timely objection. The
objection, however, is unresponsive and does not state any grounds for rejecting the magistrate
judge’s recommendation.
As noted above, this case was referred to a magistrate judge for initial review under 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). That statute affords the magistrate judge the limited power to hear
arguments and furnish this Court with a report and a recommended disposition. The magistrate
judge’s decision does not become a final decision unless it is adopted by the Court. But if no
objections are filed, the Court generally will adopt the magistrate judge’s recommendation as its
final decision.
If objections are filed, the Court will give fresh review “of those portions of the report or
specified findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see
also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th
Cir. 1981). That review entails a re-examination all of the relevant evidence previously considered
by the magistrate judge in order to determine whether the recommendation should be accepted,
rejected, or modified in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Those objections, however, must be specific. The idea is that they “provide[ ] the district
court with the opportunity to consider the specific contentions of the parties and to correct any
errors immediately,” Walters, 638 F.2d at 950, enabling the court “to focus attention on those
issues — factual and legal — that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute,” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140, 147 (1985). As a result, “‘[o]nly those specific objections to the magistrate’s report made to

-2-

the district court will be preserved for appellate review; making some objections but failing to raise
others will not preserve all the objections a party may have.’” McClanahan v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., 474 F.3d 830, 837 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231,
829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987)).
The plaintiff’s objection fails to identify any specific findings that suggest that the
magistrate judge’s reasoning or application of the law was faulty. The Sixth Circuit has stated that
“objections must be clear enough to enable the district court to discern those issues that are
dispositive and contentious.” Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995). “‘[O]bjections
disput[ing] the correctness of the magistrate’s recommendation but fail[ing] to specify the findings
. . . believed [to be] in error’ are too general.” Spencer v. Bouchard, 449 F.3d 721, 725 (6th Cir.
2006) (quoting Miller, 50 F.3d at 380). “[T]he failure to file specific objections to a magistrate’s
report constitutes a waiver of those objections.” Cowherd v. Million, 380 F.3d 909, 912 (6th Cir.
2004).
Although the failure to object properly to the magistrate judge’s report releases the Court
from its duty to review the matter independently, Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149, the Court agrees with
the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [dkt.
#58] is ADOPTED.
It is further ORDERED that the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint [dkt. #28] is
GRANTED.
It is further ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

-3-

It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for monetary award in the amount
sought and treatment sought [dkt. #59] is DENIED.
s/David M. Lawson
DAVID M. LAWSON
United States District Judge
Date: September 10, 2018
PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was
served upon each attorney or party of record herein by
electronic means or first class U.S. mail on September 10, 2018.
s/Susan K. Pinkowski
SUSAN K. PINKOWSKI

-4-