McCoy v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al

Filing 49

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 45 , 48 Motion to Amend Judgment. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (AChu)

Case 2:20-cv-11345-TGB-DRG ECF No. 49, PageID.455 Filed 10/18/22 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ROBERT M-G McCOY,

2:20-CV-11345-TGB-DRG

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
AMEND JUDGMENT (ECF
NOS. 45, 48)

vs.
DONALD SMITH, et al.,
Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Robert M-G
McCoy’s motion to amend the Court’s Order and Judgment adopting the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) granting
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 42). ECF Nos. 45,
48.
On March 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of this Court’s
Order and Judgment. ECF No. 44. Under Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure 4(a)(4)(A)(iv) and 4(a)(4)(B)(i), Plaintiff’s notice of appeal is not
effective until this Court decides the pending motion to amend the
judgment. See also Slep-Tone Ent. Corp. v. Karaoke Kandy Store, Inc.,
782 F.3d 712, 716 (6th Cir. 2015) (holding that the Sixth Circuit lacked
jurisdiction over an “ineffective” notice of appeal where the district court
had not yet decided a post-judgment motion under Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)). As such, this Court retains jurisdiction to
1

Case 2:20-cv-11345-TGB-DRG ECF No. 49, PageID.456 Filed 10/18/22 Page 2 of 6

resolve Plaintiff’s pending motion for reconsideration. For the reasons
that follow, Plaintiff’s motion to amend the judgment is DENIED.
I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court liberally construes Plaintiff’s motion as requesting that
the Court alter or amend its judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e).1 See Nagle Indus., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 175 F.R.D.
251, 254 (E.D. Mich. 1997). The Court “may grant a Rule 59(e) motion to
alter or amend judgment only if there is: (1) a clear error of law; (2) newly
discovered evidence; (3) an intervening change in controlling law; or (4)
a need to prevent manifest injustice.” Henderson v. Walled Lake Consol.
Sch., 469 F.3d 479, 496 (6th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations omitted).
“A motion under Rule 59(e) is not an opportunity to re-argue a
case.” Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d
367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998). Relatedly, Rule 59(e) cannot be used to raise
new arguments. Roger Miller Music, Inc. v. Sony/ATV Publ’g, LLC, 477
F.3d 383, 395 (6th Cir. 2007).

Pursuant to Rule 52(a)(3), neither the R&R nor the Court’s Order
adopting the R&R made formal findings of fact in ruling on Defendants’
motion for summary judgment. As such, rather than deciding Plaintiff’s
motion under Rule 52(b), the Court construes it as a motion to alter or
amend the judgment under Rule 59. Moreover, “the Rule 52(b) standard
is the same as that for a Rule 59(e) motion.” Brown v. Owens Corning Inv.
Rev. Comm., No. 3:06 CV 2125, 2009 WL 1362607, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Ohio
May 13, 2009), aff’d, 622 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 2010).
2
1

Case 2:20-cv-11345-TGB-DRG ECF No. 49, PageID.457 Filed 10/18/22 Page 3 of 6

II.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff has failed to identify any valid reason for amending or
altering this Court’s judgment under Rule 59. Indeed, the Court finds
that Plaintiff’s present motion for reconsideration merely seeks to
relitigate the issues raised in his objections to the R&R (ECF No. 39). The
Court has previously given full consideration to Plaintiff’s arguments, as
well as the reframed versions of those arguments in the present motion,
and finds them meritless.
First, Plaintiff has not pointed to any clear legal errors in the
Court’s February 4, 2022 Order adopting the R&R. In his briefing,
Plaintiff makes two primary arguments in support of amending the
judgment. Plaintiff first argues that the Court erred by accepting
Defendants’ unauthenticated and inadmissible evidence in support of
summary judgment. Similarly, Plaintiff alleges that the Magistrate
Judge “cherry picked” evidence to grant summary judgment rather than
construing facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. ECF No. 48,
PageID.442–43. But Plaintiff has not identified a “manifest error of law”
that warrants amending the judgment. D.E. v. John Doe, 834 F.3d 723,
728 (6th Cir. 2016).
Plaintiff is correct that “[t]he Court cannot consider evidence at
summary judgment that a jury could not consider at trial,” including
evidence that cannot be authenticated. Thomas v. Abercrombie & Fitch
Co., 301 F. Supp. 3d 749, 755 (E.D. Mich. 2018). In his objections to the
3

Case 2:20-cv-11345-TGB-DRG ECF No. 49, PageID.458 Filed 10/18/22 Page 4 of 6

R&R, Plaintiff previously argued that the Magistrate Judge improperly
relied on “hearsay” and suggested that Defendants’ evidence could not be
authenticated because “no affidavit or declaration was submitted as to
the validity of the documents.” ECF No. 39, PageID.403. Setting aside
that this is now a duplicative argument, Plaintiff has insufficiently
articulated his claims on this point. Although the Court liberally
construes Plaintiff’s authentication argument and grants him significant
leeway as a pro se party, the Court’s finds that the documents Defendants
submitted in support of summary judgment (ECF Nos. 33-1, 33-2, 33-3,
33-4) present no obvious authentication or admissibility issues.
Therefore, the Magistrate Judge did not err in considering them in his
findings.
Relatedly, Plaintiff argues that granting summary judgment was
improper because he raised genuine issues of material fact. Plaintiff
contends that the information contained in Defendants’ briefing and
exhibits was “falsified,” such that the Court erred by accepting the
credibility of Defendants’ arguments. ECF No. 45, PageID.433. Plaintiff
raised a similar objection to the R&R, which the Court addressed in its
prior Order. The Court reiterates its conclusion that Magistrate Judge
Grand thoroughly considered Plaintiff’s arguments, applied the proper
summary judgment standards, and correctly determined that Plaintiff
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact. In adopting the R&R,
the Court found that summary judgment is appropriate “[b]ecause
4

Case 2:20-cv-11345-TGB-DRG ECF No. 49, PageID.459 Filed 10/18/22 Page 5 of 6

McCoy has not alleged nor provided documentation that he filed a
grievance alleging the facts underlying his malicious prosecution claim.”
ECF No. 42, PageID.424. The Court thus declines to amend its judgment.
Second, Plaintiff claims to have new evidence of “recently filed
grievances” to which Defendant Flynn “failed to properly assign”
grievance ID numbers. ECF No. 48, PageID.443. These grievances filed
in January 2022 do constitute new evidence that was not available when
Plaintiff filed his R&R objections, id. at PageID.448–52, but they do not
change the Court’s conclusions.
The Court adopted the R&R to grant Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment because Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative
remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) in bringing
his malicious prosecution claim. ECF No. 42, PageID.418. The Court
construes Plaintiff’s evidence of recently filed grievances as an attempt
to argue that Defendants have obstructed his ability to properly utilize
available grievance procedures. As the Court previously noted, “if it were
the case that a proper grievance had been filed related to his malicious
prosecution claim and then Defendants thwarted the grievance process,
McCoy might have a claim for relief.” Id. at PageID.423. But again, “that
is not the case” with respect to Plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim. Id.
Plaintiff’s recently filed grievances related to “unbecoming conduct of
[Michigan Department of Corrections] staff,” ECF No. 48, PageID.446, do
not alter the fact that Plaintiff did not administratively exhaust remedies
5

Case 2:20-cv-11345-TGB-DRG ECF No. 49, PageID.460 Filed 10/18/22 Page 6 of 6

for his malicious prosecution claim. In sum, Plaintiff’s newly discovered
evidence fails to justify amending the judgment.
Third, Plaintiff has not pointed to any intervening change in
controlling law that warrants altering the Court’s judgment.
Lastly, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that granting his motion
under Rule 59(e) is necessary to prevent manifest injustice. At bottom,
“[d]isagreement with a decision fails to allege sufficient grounds upon
which to grant reconsideration.” Smith v. Spencer, No. 5:17-CV-11090,
2018 WL 827808, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 12, 2018).
III. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s arguments do not satisfy the rigorous standards for relief
under Rule 59(e). Plaintiff’s motion to amend the judgment (ECF Nos.
45, 48) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 18, 2022

s/Terrence G. Berg
TERRENCE G. BERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6