Reeves v. Eagan et al

Filing 27

ORDER adopting 25 Report and Recommendation and granting defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 14 Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANTONIO REEVES,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-CV-13591

v.
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH
MICHAEL EAGAN, BARBARA
SAMPSON, L. SCHNEIDER,
T. WAKLEY, ABIGAIL
CALLEJAS, JEROME WARFIELD,
MELISSA JENNINGS, and HEIDI
WASHINGTON,
Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMMARY JUDGMENT
Before the court is Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti’s report and
recommendation dated June 13, 2018. Magistrate Judge Patti
recommends that the court grant Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment. Plaintiff filed objections on July 6, 2018.
With respect to reports and recommendations from magistrate
judges, this court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of
the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The court “may accept, reject
-1-

or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate.” Id.
Plaintiff, Antonio Reeves, alleges that his due process rights were
violated when the Michigan Parole Board relied upon inaccurate
information in denying him parole. The defendants include Michigan Parole
Board members and other employees of the Michigan Department of
Corrections. Magistrate Judge Patti recommends that the court grant
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment because Plaintiff failed to
establish a constitutional violation and Defendants are entitled to qualified
immunity. In the alternative, the magistrate judge recommends that the
court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice because Plaintiff failed
to exhaust his administrative remedies.
Having reviewed the record, the court agrees with Magistrate Judge
Patti’s analysis that Plaintiff cannot establish a constitutional violation as a
matter of law. In order to establish a procedural due process violation,
Plaintiff must show that he was deprived of a liberty or property interest
without due process of law. Michigan’s parole system is discretionary and
creates “no liberty interest in parole.” Wershe v. Combs, 763 F.3d 500, 506
(6th Cir. 2014). Therefore, “even if the Parole Board relied on inaccurate
information to deny [plaintiff] parole, it did not violate any liberty interest
-2-

protected by the United States Constitution.” Caldwell v. McNutt, 158 Fed.
Appx. 739, 741 (6th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff’s objections do not address the
clear legal authority establishing that Michigan’s parole system does not
create a liberty interest in parole. The court agrees with the magistrate
judge that dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice is appropriate.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Patti’s
report and recommendation (Doc. 25) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as
the order of the court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 26) are
OVERRULED and Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 14) is
GRANTED.
Dated: August 14, 2018
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
August 14, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also
on Antonio Reeves #341005, Parnall Correctional Facility –
SMT, 1780 E. Parnall, Jackson, MI 49201.
s/Barbara Radke
Deputy Clerk

-3-