Woollard v. Corizon Health Inc. et al

Filing 80

OPINION AND ORDER Adopting 76 Report and Recommendation for 71 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Rosilyn Jindal, Corizon Health Inc., Rickey Coleman - Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DTof)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Cory Woollard
Case No. 18-cv-11529

Plaintiff,

Paul D. Borman
United States District Judge

v.
Corizon Health, Inc., Rickey Coleman,
and Rosilyn Jindal
Defendant.
________________________________/

Anthony P. Patti
United States Magistrate Judge

OPINION AND ORDER
1) GRANTING DEFENDANT COLEMAN’S FIRST OBJECTION:
ACCEPTING AND CONSIDERING DEFENDANTS’ REPLY BRIEF
(ECF No. 75);
2) REJECTING DEFENDANT COLEMAN’S SECOND OBJECTION TO
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SUSTAINING PLAINTIFF’S EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIM IN
COUNT II WITH REGARD TO HIS CRITICAL NEED FOR FOAM
SOAP (ECF No. 77);
3) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE PATTI’S JANUARY 7, 2021
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 76) GRANTING IN
PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

1

I.

Background
Plaintiff Cory Woollard, a paraplegic who is currently incarcerated, initiated

the instant civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983, on May 15, 2018 against
seven Defendants. (ECF No. 1.) On September 17, 2018, Plaintiff filed an amended
verified complaint, which named three Defendants: (1) Corizon Health, Inc.; (2)
Richard Harbaugh; and (3) Rosilyn Jindal. (ECF No. 28.) Assistant Chief Medical
Officer (ACMO) Rickey Coleman has been substituted for Defendant Harbaugh.
Plaintiff asserts two Counts alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment provision
against infliction of cruel and unusual punishment: (I) Defendants Corizon and
Jindal were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical need for a suitable air
mattress; and (II) All three Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s
medical need for waterless foam soap, and for a Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve
Stimulation (TENS) unit. (ECF No. 28.)
On January 7, 2021, Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti issued a Report and
Recommendation to Grant in part and Deny in part Defendants Jindal, Coleman, and
Corizon Health’s Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
(ECF No. 76.) Specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendants
Jindal and Corizon Health are entitled to summary judgment on Count I, which
concerns a suitable air mattress; that Defendants Corizon Health, Coleman, and
Jindal are entitled to summary judgment on the portion of Count II related to the
2

TENS unit; but that Plaintiff should be permitted to proceed with the portion of
Count II related to the foam soap order as to Defendant Coleman, but not as to
Defendant Jindal or Defendant Corizon Health.
On January 21, 2021, Defendant Dr. Rickey Coleman filed two objections to
the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 77.) Plaintiff filed a Response to
Defendant Coleman’s Objections. (ECF No. 78.)
The pertinent background facts of this matter are set forth in detail in the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and the Court adopts them in full.
II.

Standard of Review
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),

the Court conducts a de novo review of the portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation to which a party has filed “specific written objection” in a
timely manner. Lyons v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., 351 F. Supp. 2d 659, 661 (E.D. Mich.
2004). Only those objections that are specific are entitled to a de novo review under
the statute. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986). “A general
objection, or one that merely restates the arguments previously presented is not
sufficient to alert the court to alleged errors on the part of the magistrate judge.”
Aldrich v. Bock, 327 F. Supp. 2d 743, 747 (E.D. Mich. 2004).

3

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, summary judgment is proper if the moving party
demonstrates there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. The Supreme Court
has interpreted this to mean that summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence is
such that a reasonable jury could find only for the moving party. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). The moving party has “the burden of showing
the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact.” Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co.,
398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). In a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case, in order to find any defendant
liable, liability “must be based on the actions of that defendant in the situation that
the defendant faced, and not based on any problems caused by the errors of others.”
Gibson v. Matthews, 926 F.2d 532, 535 (6th. Cir. 1991).
III.

Analysis
a. Objection 1 Regarding Defendants’ Reply Brief.

In the Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Patti concluded that
Defendants’ Reply brief was “tardy and, therefore, has not been considered in this
report and recommendation.” (ECF No. 76 PageID.758.)

This Court, in its

discretion, has accepted and read the Reply brief, thereby granting Defendant’s
Objection to that portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, Defendant’s first Objection is GRANTED.
b. Objection 2 – The Magistrate Judge Erred in Concluding Dr.
Coleman was Deliberately Indifferent to Mr. Woollard’s Need for
Waterless Soap.
4

The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Defendant Coleman
is not entitled to summary judgment on this paraplegic inmate Plaintiff’s claim that
Coleman was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s critical need for waterless foam
soap for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
(ECF No. 76.) Defendant Coleman was aware that Plaintiff Woollard had been
receiving a monthly bottle of foam soap since March 31, 2014, and Defendant
Coleman deliberately rejected Plaintiff’s continuing requests for foam soap which is
necessary for the Plaintiff to cleanse himself after defecating. Simply put, bar soap
is not a reasonable substitute, and Dr. Coleman’s refusal to continue providing
waterless foam soap exhibits a deliberate indifference to this paraplegic inmate’s
medical need to avoid infection since he did not have a sink, toilet, or running water
in his cell.
Accordingly, Defendant’s Second Objection is REJECTED.
IV.

Conclusion

(1) Defendant Coleman’s First Objection regarding the Magistrate Judge’s
striking of Defendants’ Reply brief as tardy is GRANTED;
(2) Defendant Coleman’s Second Objection regarding the Magistrate Judge’s
ruling with regard to Plaintiff’s critical need for foam soap is REJECTED;
(3) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in large part,
and DENIED in part as to the Portion of Count II against Defendant
5

Coleman related to his unjustified refusal to continue provision of
waterless foam soap, thereby being deliberately indifferent to the
substantial risk of serious infection to this paraplegic inmate.
SO ORDERED.

s/Paul D. Borman
Paul D. Borman
United States District Judge
Dated: May 7, 2021

6