Young v. Jindal

Filing 111

ORDER denying 94 and 110 Motions for Reconsideration - Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (LBar)

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

v.
ROSILYN JINDAL, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION
[#94, #110]
I.

INTRODUCTION
On September 29, 2023, this Court entered an Order Accepting and

Adopting Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti’s August 21, 2023 Report and
Recommendation recommending that Defendants Kimberly Korte’s and Michele
Gilbert’s Motion to Dismiss be granted and Granting Korte’s and Gilbert’s Motion
to Dismiss. On November 27, 2023, this Court entered an Amended Order
Accepting and Adopting Magistrate Judge Patti’s August 21, 2023 Report and
Recommendation and Granting Korte’s and Gilbert’s Motion to Dismiss in order to
address Plaintiff’s Objections.

Now before the Court is the Plaintiff’s Motions for Reconsideration, filed on
October 12, 2023 and December 26, 2023. ECF Nos. 94, 110. For the following
reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motions for Reconsideration.
II.

LAW & ANALYSIS
Rule 59(e) permits district courts to alter, amend, or vacate a prior

judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Huff v. Metropo. Life Insur. Co., 675 F.2d
119, 122 (6th Cir. 1982). The purpose of Rule 59(e) is “to allow the district court
to correct its own errors, sparing the parties and appellate courts the burden of
unnecessary appellate proceedings[.]” Howard v. United States, 533 F.3d 472, 475
(6th Cir. 2008) (quoting York v. Tate, 858 F.2d 322, 326 (6th Cir. 1988)). It
permits district courts to amend judgments where 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.” Intera Corp. v. Henderson, 428 F.3d 605,
620 (6th Cir. 2005). The grant or denial of a Rule 59(e) motion is within the
informed discretion of the district court. Huff, 675 F.2d at 122.
A. October 12, 2023 Rule 59(e) Motion
In his initial Rule 59(e) motion, Plaintiff complains that the Court
erroneously concluded in its September 29, 2023 Opinion and Order Adopting the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation that Plaintiff had not filed any
objections to the Report and Recommendation. After Plaintiff contacted the Court

2

to explain that he had in fact sent his objections through the mail, the Court entered
an Order permitting Plaintiff to resubmit his Objections to the Report and
Recommendation because the Court had not received his objections in the mail.
Plaintiff resubmitted his objections and they were filed with the Court on October
12, 2023. On November 27, 2023, the Court entered an Amended Opinion and
Order Adopting and Accepting the Report and Recommendation after reviewing
and overruling Plaintiff’s resubmitted objections. Plaintiff’s complaints have
already been remedied by this Court; therefore, Rule 59(e) relief is not warranted.
B. December 26, 2023 Rule 59(e) Motion
In his second motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff argues Defendants Korte
and Gilbert should not have been dismissed from this action because they “delayed
and interrupted his course of medical treatment when they abandoned their
affirmative duties to provide him with batteries for his hearing aid devices.” ECF
No. 110, PageID.1218. It is well settled in this Circuit that “a mere failure to act”
does not state a valid § 1983 claim. Miller v. Gettel, No. 22-1034, 2023 WL
2945340, at *8-9 (quoting Peatross v. City of Memphis, 818 F.3d 233, 242 (6th
Cir. 2016)). There must be allegations that “the supervisor either encouraged the
specific incident of misconduct or in some other way directly participated in it.”
Id.

3

Contrary to Plaintiff’s repeated claims, an “abdication of supervisory
responsibilities is [not] enough to establish liability for a subordinate’s
unconstitutional acts.” Id. Plaintiff’s allegations do not explain how either Korte
or Gilbert were fully aware of his condition or personally involved in the decision
to deny him batteries for his hearing aids. To succeed on a claim against these
defendants, Plaintiff must show their personal involvement in the acts that
constitute the alleged constitutional violation. Salehpour v. University of
Tennessee, 159 F.3d 199, 206 (6th Cir. 1998).
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is another rehashing of arguments he
has previously presented and that have been rejected by this Court. He provides no
basis for Rule 59(e) relief.
III.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motions for Reconsideration [#94, #110] are
DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 6, 2024

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

4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
February 6, 2024, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
/s/ Lisa Bartlett
Case Manager

5