Taylor v. Chapman et al

Filing 37

OPINION and ORDER Accepting and Adopting 32 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, Granting 22 MOTION for Summary Judgment, and Denying 36 MOTION to Amend the Complaint - Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (LBar)

Case 2:20-cv-13041-NGE-CI ECF No. 37, PageID.273 Filed 02/16/22 Page 1 of 4

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

Case No. 20-13041

v.

Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

OFFICER WRIGHT, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
AUGUST 16, 2021 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [32]
AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO AMEND COMPLAINT [36]
This is a pro se prisoner civil rights lawsuit filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Plaintiff
Leon Taylor alleging violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United
States Constitution. Upon initial screening, the Court found Plaintiff sufficiently stated
claims against Defendant Officers Wright, Jones, and John Does (“Defendants”), who are
Michigan Department of Corrections employees, based on their alleged deliberate
indifference to safeguarding him from contracting COVID-19 and to his medical needs
stemming from his diabetes. (ECF No. 5.) The case was then referred to Magistrate
Judge Curtis Ivy, Jr. for all pre-trial matters. (ECF No. 12.) Before the Court is the
Magistrate Judge’s August 16, 2021 report and recommendation to grant Defendant
Officers Wright and Jones’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 32.) Plaintiff has
filed objections to that report and recommendation, (ECF Nos. 33, 34), and Defendants
have filed a response to those objections, (ECF No. 35). Plaintiff has also filed a request
to amend his complaint.

(ECF No. 36.)

For the reasons stated below, the Court

OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections and ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS the report and
1 

Case 2:20-cv-13041-NGE-CI ECF No. 37, PageID.274 Filed 02/16/22 Page 2 of 4

recommendation (ECF No. 32). The Court therefore GRANTS Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment (ECF No. 22) and DENIES Plaintiff’s request to amend the complaint
(ECF No. 36) as moot.
I.

Standard of Review
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), “[t]he district judge must determine

de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.
The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive
further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” See also
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
II.

Analysis
The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s claims because he failed

to properly exhaust his administrative remedies. The Magistrate Judge also found the
claims brought against Defendants in their official capacity barred by Eleventh
Amendment immunity. Plaintiff has filed three objections, but his objections consist in
large part of reassertions of the arguments he previously made before the Magistrate
Judge. “This Court is not obligated to address objections made in this form because the
objections fail to identify the specific errors in the magistrate judge’s proposed
recommendations, and such objections undermine the purpose of the Federal
Magistrate’s Act, which serves to reduce duplicative work and conserve judicial
resources.” See Owens v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:12-CV-47, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
44411, at *8 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 28, 2013) (citations omitted). Nonetheless, the Court has
reviewed the record and agrees with the Magistrate Judge.

2 

Case 2:20-cv-13041-NGE-CI ECF No. 37, PageID.275 Filed 02/16/22 Page 3 of 4

Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the merits of his underlying claims and qualified
immunity go to issues not before the Court. And with regard to the exhaustion issue, the
record shows the grievance process was available to Plaintiff. But as the Magistrate
Judge found, the only one of Plaintiff’s grievances appealed through step III was properly
rejected for a reason set forth in the applicable grievance procedure.1 More specifically,
it raised multiple, unrelated issues—complaints related to what Plaintiff describes as
“inhumane treatment” while in quarantine due to the COVID-19 virus (one issue) as well
as a complaint about his personal property following his transfer (a separate issue). See,
e.g., Rusiecki v. Trombley, No. 06-cv-14023, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99733, at *16 (E.D.
Mich. Nov. 30, 2007) (grievance properly rejected because it contained a complaint
regarding legal mail and an unrelated complaint about a failed monetary disbursement).
Thus, Plaintiff’s claims are subject to dismissal for failure to properly exhaust.
With regard to the claims brought against Defendants in their official capacity,
Plaintiff recently filed a request to amend along with a proposed amended complaint
omitting those claims and thus conceding this issue. Regardless, the Magistrate Judge
correctly found those claims barred by the Eleventh Amendment. And because the Court
is dismissing this case as recommended by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff’s request to
amend his complaint is moot.

1

And even if the grievance had not been properly rejected, it relates only to
Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to safeguarding him from the
risk of contracting COVID-19 and does not address his allegations that Defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his medical needs stemming from his diabetes.
3 

Case 2:20-cv-13041-NGE-CI ECF No. 37, PageID.276 Filed 02/16/22 Page 4 of 4

III.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections and

ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation (ECF No.
32). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF
No. 22) and DENIES Plaintiff’s request to amend his complaint (ECF No. 36) as moot.
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their individual capacity are dismissed without
prejudice, and his claims against Defendants in their official capacity are dismissed with
prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
s/Nancy G. Edmunds
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge
Dated: February 16, 2022
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
on February 16, 2022, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Bartlett
Case Manager

4