Young v. Jindal

Filing 108

AMENDED ORDER Accepting and Adopting 81 Report and Recommendation, Overruling Plaintiff's 96 Objections and, Granting Defendants Korte's and Gilbert's 66 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TMcg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ARDRA YOUNG, #260575,
Plaintiff,
Case No.: 21-12170
Hon. Gershwin A. Drain

v.

ROSILYN JINDAL, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________/
AMENDED ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION [#81], OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS [#96] AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS KORTE’S
AND GILBERT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [#66]
I.

INTRODUCTION
On August 21, 2023, Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti issued a Report and

Recommendation on Defendant Kimberly Korte’s and Michelle Gilbert’s Motion
to Dismiss. Plaintiff requested additional time within which to file his objections
to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, which recommended that
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be granted. However, the Court did not receive
Plaintiff’s objections by the extended deadline of September 28, 2023. Thereafter,
Plaintiff contacted the Court to advise that he had in fact timely filed his objections

on September 11, 2023. The Court therefore required Plaintiff to resubmit his
objections and he filed his objections on October 12, 2023. Upon review of the
Plaintiff’s October 12, 2023 Objections and the Defendants’ Response, filed on
October 24, 2023, as well as the relevant authority, the Court again concludes that
the Magistrate Judge reached the correct conclusion. Defendants Korte’s and
Gilbert’s Motion to Dismiss will be granted.
II.

ANALYSIS
A. Plaintiff’s Allegations and Magistrate Judge Patti’s Report and
Recommendation
Plaintiff filed the instant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that while housed

at the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility (GHC), Defendants Michigan
Department of Corrections employees violated his First and Eighth Amendment
rights by depriving him of adequate medical care for his hearing condition.
Plaintiff further alleges this inadequate medical care ultimately caused his
condition to deteriorate and resulted in hearing loss.
In his August 21, 2023 Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge
concluded Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to allege any specific allegations
that Korte, as the Health Unit Manager at GHC, or Gilbert, GHC’s Nursing
Supervisor, either encouraged the specific unconstitutional misconduct or in some
other way directly participated in it. Rather, Plaintiff merely alleges that Korte and

2

Gilbert abandoned their affirmative duty to ensure the Health Care Clinic was fully
operational with respect to providing medically necessary auxiliary aids to hard of
hearing prisoners. Plaintiff’s failure to set forth specific facts of Korte’s and
Gilbert’s personal involvement in the alleged misconduct requires that his Eighth
Amendment deliberate indifference claim be dismissed against them. See Peatross
v. City of Memphis, 818 F.3d 233, 241 (6th Cir. 2016)(“[A] supervisor cannot be
held liable simply because he or she was charged with overseeing a subordinate
who violated the constitutional rights of another.”). Finally, because Plaintiff fails
to allege a viable Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Korte and Gilbert,
Magistrate Judge Patti recommended that the Court need not consider their
alternative exhaustion argument.
B. Objection No. 1
Plaintiff first objects to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint fails to allege that the Defendants participated in the alleged
unconstitutional conduct. However, Plaintiff merely raises the same arguments
made in response to the Defendants’ original motion. “Objections to a Magistrate
Judge’s report and recommendation are not meant to simply rehash arguments set
forth in the” response to the motion. Prevost v. Saul, No. 20-CV-11961, 2021 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 92194, at *4 (E.D. Mich. May 14, 2021). As such, objections that
merely restate arguments previously raised and considered do not require the Court
3

to consider them. See Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505,
509 (6th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff’s first objection is overruled.
C. Objection No. 2
Next, Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that he alleged a
non-cognizable claim of supervisor liability. Here again, Plaintiff simply disagrees
with the Magistrate Judge and rehashes his previous arguments. Plaintiff’s second
objection will also be denied. Objections cannot be generic and cannot merely
disagree with the magistrate judge’s conclusion. See Spencer v. Bouchard, 449
F.3d 721, 726 (6th Cir. 2006).
D. Objection No. 3
Finally, Plaintiff’s third objection is another rehashing of his previous
arguments and merely raises his disagreements with the Magistrate Judge’s
conclusion that Plaintiff’s claims against Korte and Gilbert rest on their
supervisory positions. Plaintiff’s difference of opinion does not establish how the
report and recommendation’s conclusions are clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Id. Plaintiff’s third objection is likewise overruled.
III.

CONCLUSION

The Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Patti’s August 21, 2023
Report and Recommendation [#81] as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions

4

of law. Plaintiff’s Objections [#96] are OVERRULED. Defendants Korte’s and
Gilbert’s Motion to Dismiss [#66] is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 27, 2023

/s/Gershwin A. Drain
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record and on Ardra Young,
#260575, Richard Handlon Correctional Facility, 1728 Bluewater Highway, Ionia,
MI 48846 on
November 27, 2023, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
/s/ Teresa McGovern
Case Manager

5