Early v. Callejas et al

Filing 45

ORDER Partially Accepting and Adopting Report and Recommendation 40 Overruling Plaintiff's Objections 41 , Denying Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction 23 , Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment 26 , Dismissing as Moot Report and Recommendation 44 and Dismissing Action. Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (MarW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
OLAJUWAN EARLY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.: 24-cv-11140
Hon. Gershwin A. Drain

ABIGAIL CALLEJAS, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________/
ORDER PARTIALLY ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION [#40] OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS
[#41], DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION [#23], GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
AND/OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [#26], DISMISSING AS MOOT
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [#44] AND DISMISSING ACTION
I.

INTRODUCTION

Presently before the Court is Magistrate Judge Curtis Ivy’s January 3, 2025
Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court grant Defendants
Abigail Callejas’s, Edwin Heap’s, Melissa Jennings’, Anthony King’s, Ricardo
Moore’s, Brian Shipman’s, Adrianne Van Langevelde’s, Sonia Warchock’s and
Sandra Wilson’s Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment. Magistrate
Judge Ivy further recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction
be denied as to Defendants Callejas, Heap, Jennings, King, Moore, Shipman, Van

Langevelde, Warchock and Wilson and denied without prejudice as to Defendant
Jerome Warfield, who has not yet been served with the complaint. On January 28,
2025, Plaintiff filed his objection to the Report and Recommendation. In his
objection, Plaintiff complains that the Magistrate Judge incorrectly concluded that
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment should be granted.
For the reasons that follow, the Court partially accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge
Ivy’s Report and Recommendation.
II.

LAW & ANALYSIS

A. Standard of Review
Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 sets forth the standard of review used by the Court when
examining a report and recommendation. The 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). This
Court has the power to, “accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id.
B. Objection
Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that this case should be
dismissed against Defendants Callejas, Heap, Jennings, King, Moore, Shipman
Van Langevelde, Warchock, and Wilson. Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument,
Magistrate Judge Ivy correctly concluded that each discrete procedural due process
2

claim has its own limitations period, thus the continuing violation doctrine does not
apply to Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claims. See Broom v. Strickland, 579
F.3d 553, 555-56 (6th Cir. 2009). Therefore, the only due process claims that fall
within the applicable statute of limitations–April 2021 through April 2024–are
those related to parole denials on September 14, 2022 and September 15, 2023.
Thus, the only Fourteenth Amendment claims that are timely are the claims against
Defendants Wilson, Van Langevelde, Heap, and King.
Similarly, Magistrate Judge Ivy correctly found that all of Plaintiff’s Fifth
Amendment claims are untimely except for those related to parole denials on
September 14, 2022 and September 15, 2023. Id. Thus, Plaintiff’s Fifth
Amendment claim against Defendants Wilson, Van Langevelde, Heap, King and
Shipman are timely.
However, as Magistrate Judge Ivy correctly determined, Plaintiff’s timely
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims are subject to dismissal because Plaintiff
failed to properly exhaust his administrative remedies against Defendants Wilson,
Van Langevelde, Heap, King and Shipman. See Haner v. Michigan Dep’t of Corr.,
No. 1:23-cv-1001, 2024 WL 4112114, at *3 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 12, 2024); Barber
v. Cunningham, No. 2:23-cv-10095, 2024 WL 1453212, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 3,
2024).

3

Finally, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that
Plaintiff’s First and Eighth Amendment claims fail Rule 12(b)(6) scrutiny. See
Eidson v. Tenn. Dep’t of Children’s Servs., 510 F.3d 631, 637 (6th Cir. 2007);
Hadix v. Johnson, 367 F.3d 513, 525 (6th Cir. 2024). Thus, Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment must be granted. Plaintiff’s objection is
overruled.
C. Defendant Jerome Warfield
While the Court agrees with the majority of Magistrate Judge Ivy’s
conclusions, the Court does not adopt the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that
Defendant Warfield has viable Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims. ECF No.
40, PageID.405. This conclusion is contrary to the conclusions reached by
Magistrate Judge Ivy in his Report and Recommendation concerning Plaintiff’s
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims.
The Complaint’s allegations against Warfield include Warfield’s May 28,
2016 parole decision—granting Plaintiff parole with the requirement that he
complete a residential sex offender program (RSOP). ECF No. 1, PageID.20.
Plaintiff also complains that Warfield denied parole on July 21, 2016, once
Plaintiff was reincarcerated after absconding from the KPEP facility where he was
enrolled in the RSOP. Id., PageID.24-30. The July 21, 2016 denial was based on
Plaintiff’s failure to complete the RSOP. Id. Because Defendant Warfield’s parole
4

decisions occurred in 2016, Plaintiff’s failure to bring his claims within the
applicable statute of limitations renders his claims meritless.
Magistrate Judge Ivy correctly concluded the due process claims that
accrued prior to April of 2021 were untimely. This includes Plaintiff’s Fourteenth
Amendment claim against Defendant Warfield, which accrued no later than July
2016, when he was denied parole based on his failure to complete the RSOP.
Similarly, Plaintiff’s First, Fifth and Eighth Amendment claims accrued no later
than July of 2016, as such his First, Fifth and Eighth Amendment claims are
likewise time-barred by the applicable three-year statute of limitations.
Even though Defendant Warfield has not been served and he has not brought
a motion before the Court, it is appropriate for the Court to raise the statute of
limitations issue sua sponte in screening civil rights complaints. See Scruggs v.
Jones, 86 F. App’x 916, 917 (6th Cir. 2004). Because Plaintiff’s claims against
Defendant Warfield accrued no later than July of 2016, his claims-filed in April of
2024, are untimely under the applicable three-year statute of limitations and ripe
for summary dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Accordingly, Magistrate
Judge Ivy’s March 10, 2025 Report and Recommendation on Defendant Warfield
[#44] is dismissed as moot.

5

III.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court hereby partially ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate
Judge Ivy’s January 3, 2025 Report and Recommendation [#40].
Defendants Abigail Callejas’s, Edwin Heap’s, Melissa Jennings’, Anthony
King’s, Ricardo Moore’s, Brian Shipman’s, Adrianne Van Langevelde’s, Sonia
Warchock’s and Sandra Wilson’s Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary
Judgment [#26] is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Jerome Warfield are DISMISSED
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction [#23] is DENIED.
Magistrate Judge Ivy’s March 10, 2025 Report and Recommendation [#44]
is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
This cause of action is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 11, 2025

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

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
March 11, 2025, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
/s/ Marlena Williams
Case Manager
6