Eden v. Keinath et al

Filing 48

ORDER ADOPTING 43 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and granting in part and denying in part defendant's 35 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (TTho)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JESSE EDEN,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 22-11515

v.

Hon. George Caram Steeh
Hon. David R. Grand

NICOLE KEINATH, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATON
(ECF NO. 43) AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 35)
On April 15, 2024, Magistrate Judge David R. Grand issued a report
and recommendation proposing that the court grant in part and deny in part
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Both sides have filed
objections.
With respect to reports and recommendations from magistrate
judges, this court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of
the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The court “may accept, reject
or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate.” Id.

-1-

Plaintiff Jesse Eden’s claims arise from his period of pretrial detention
at the Sanilac County Jail. Plaintiff alleges that he was sexually assaulted
by a “John Doe” jail deputy and then was retaliated against for attempting
to report the assault. He also alleges that Defendant Cody Abrego punched
him in the eye. Magistrate Judge Grand recommends that the court dismiss
Plaintiff’s sexual assault and retaliation claims, while allowing the physical
assault claim against Defendant Abrego to proceed to trial.
With respect to the sexual assault claim, the magistrate judge
concluded that “even if Eden could identify and name this John Doe
defendant, which he so far has failed to do, the evidence is that the
purported ‘sexual assault’ was nothing more than touching that occurred
during the course of a normal strip search.” ECF No. 43 at PageID 618-20.
Plaintiff objects, claiming that he can now identify the perpetrator as Deputy
Willing and that the deputy touched his “butthole” and “moaned.” ECF No.
45. In his deposition, however, Plaintiff agreed that there was no
penetration and that he had no evidence that “this had anything to do with
sex.” ECF No. 35-2 at PageID 234-35. He also was unwilling to identify
Deputy Willing, testifying that he was “not sure” who assaulted him. Id. at
232.

-2-

Plaintiff may not embellish his claim by raising additional facts that
were not before the magistrate judge and/or were not provided in his
deposition testimony. See, e.g., Murr v. United States, 200 F.3d 895, 902
(6th Cir. 2000) (“Courts have held that while the Magistrate Judge Act, 28
U.S.C. § 631 et seq., permits de novo review by the district court if timely
objections are filed, absent compelling reasons, it does not allow parties to
raise at the district court stage new arguments or issues that were not
presented to the magistrate.”); Reid v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 790 F.2d
453, 460 (6th Cir. 1986) (“A party may not create a factual issue by filing an
affidavit, after a motion for summary judgment has been made, which
contradicts her earlier deposition testimony.”). Based upon the facts before
the magistrate judge, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the magistrate
judge erred in concluding that “the purported ‘sexual assault’ was nothing
more than touching that occurred during the course of a normal strip
search” and does not give rise to a constitutional violation. Plaintiff’s
objections are overruled.
Defendants object to the magistrate judge’s determination that a
reasonable jury could find in favor of Plaintiff on his physical assault claim
under the Fourteenth Amendment. See Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S.
389, 397, 400-401 (2015) (“[T]he Due Process Clause protects a pretrial
-3-

detainee from the use of excessive force that amounts to punishment.”).
Defendants maintain that, given Plaintiff’s contradictory testimony, this is
one of “rare circumstances” in which a reasonable jury could not credit his
claims. See Jeffreys v. City of New York, 426 F.3d 549, 554 (2nd Cir. 2005).
Although Plaintiff has provided contradictory testimony regarding the
circumstances surrounding Defendant Abrego’s alleged assault, he has
consistently testified that he was punched. The court agrees with the
magistrate judge’s conclusion that, although Plaintiff’s testimony raises
serious credibility issues, such issues are for the jury to resolve. ECF No.
43 at PageID 620-23.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ objections are
OVERRULED, Magistrate Judge Grand’s report and recommendation (ECF
No. 43) is ADOPTED as the order of the court, and Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment (ECF No. 35) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART, consistent with Magistrate Judge Grand’s report and
recommendation.
Dated: June 4, 2024

s/George Caram Steeh
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record
on June 4, 2024, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and
also on Jesse Eden #358966, Handlon Correctional
Facility, 1728 Bluewater Highway, Ionia, MI 48846.
s/LaShawn Saulsberry
Deputy Clerk

-5-