Knop v. Warren et al

Filing 114

OPINION AND ORDER adopting 109 and 110 Report and Recommendations, granting 85 and 91 Motions for summary judgment, and dismissing plaintiff's complaint without prejudice against defendants Williams, Maes, and five unnamed individuals pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (DPer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LORI KNOP,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 14-10185
Honorable Linda V. Parker

v.
MILLICENT WARREN, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
FEBRUARY 17, 2015 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS [ECF NOS.
109 & 110]; (2) GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
FILED BY MDOC EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS [ECF NOS. 85, 91]; AND (3)
DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE
AGAINST DEFENDANTS WILLIAMS, MAES, AND FIVE UNNAMED
INDIVIDUALS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 4(m)
On January 15, 2014, Plaintiff Lori Knop commenced this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against numerous defendants. Plaintiff, a now
paroled Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) inmate, alleges that
Defendants violated her Eighth Amendment rights while she was incarcerated in
that they were deliberately indifferent to her serious medical condition.
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that she was deprived of Armour Thyroid Hormone
for the five-month period between September 2012 and January 2013. The matter

has been referred to Magistrate Judge David R. Grand for all pretrial proceedings,
including a hearing and determination of all non-dispositive matters pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and/or a report and recommendation (“R&R”) on all
dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (ECF No. 47.)
On September 16, 2014, a motion for summary judgment was filed by
Defendants Elizabeth Coe-Boozer and Timothy Kangas. (ECF No. 85.) On
September 25, 2014, a motion for summary judgment was filed by Defendants S.
Laughunn, Richard Russell, and Frank Van Goethem. (ECF No. 91.) These
defendants are or were at all relevant times MDOC employees. Despite being
granted several extensions of time to respond to the motions by Magistrate Judge
Grand, Plaintiff to date has not filed a response to either motion.
On February 17, 2015, Magistrate Judge Grand issued an R&R, in which he
recommends that the Court grant the MDOC Employee Defendants’ motions.
(ECF No. 109). In his R&R, Magistrate Judge Grand indicates that the undisputed
evidence establishes that Defendants Russell, Van Goethem, and Laughhunn
lacked the required level of personal involvement to be liable for the alleged
constitutional violations. (Id. at 5-6.) The most involvement any of these
defendants had with respect to Plaintiff’s medical care, Magistrate Judge Grand
finds, was with the denial of Plaintiff’s grievances complaining about the fact that
2

she had not received Armour Thyroid Hormone. (Id.) It is well established that an
individual’s mere participation in the grievance process is insufficient to show
personal involvement sufficient to demonstrate liability under § 1983. See, e.g.,
Shehee v. Lutrell, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir. 1999). Magistrate Judge Grand then
indicates that the undisputed evidence fails to show that Defendants Kangas or
Coe-Boozer were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical needs. (Id. at 610.)
During the litigation of this matter, Magistrate Judge Grand also issued
orders addressing service of Plaintiff’s Complaint on seven defendants: Sandra L.
Maes, Nurse Williams, Regional Medical Officer (unknown”), Regional Medical
Director, Nurse 4 (last name unknown), Grievance Coordinator BOA-HVWCF
(last name unknown), and Grievance Coordinator BOA-Bragg (last name
unknown). (ECF Nos. 65, 66.) In those orders, Magistrate Judge Grand warned
Plaintiff that if service could not be accomplished on these defendants, she may be
required to show cause why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice
against them.1 (Id.) On January 14, 2015, after service still had not been

1

Magistrate Judge Grand also warned Plaintiff that if she failed to provide
information regarding the correct names and addresses of the unnamed, unserved
defendants, she may be required to show cause why the action should not be
dismissed without prejudice against them. (ECF Nos. 65, 66.)
3

accomplished on these defendants, Magistrate Judge Grand entered a show cause
order requiring Plaintiff to provide correct addresses where each of these seven
defendants could be served or show cause why the action should not be dismissed
without prejudice against them by January 30, 2015. (ECF No. 105.) Plaintiff
neither provided correct addresses for these defendants nor responded in writing to
the show cause order.
Therefore, on February 17, 2015, Magistrate Judge Grand issued an R&R
recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed without prejudice pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) against Defendants Nurse Williams,
Sandra Maes, and the five unnamed individuals. (ECF No. 110.)
At the conclusion of his R&Rs, Magistrate Judge Grand informs the parties
that they must file any objections within fourteen days. (Id. at 4-5; ECF No. 109 at
10-11.) He further advises that the “[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes
a waiver of any further right of appeal.” (Id., citations omitted). No objections
were filed to either R&R.
The Court has carefully reviewed the R&Rs and concurs with the
conclusions reached by Magistrate Judge Grand. The Court therefore adopts
Magistrate Judge Grand’s recommendations in his February 17, 2015 R&Rs.
Accordingly,
4

IT IS ORDERED, that the motion for summary judgment filed by
Defendants Elizabeth Coe-Boozer and Timothy Kangas (ECF No. 85) and the
motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants S. Laughunn, Richard Russell,
and Frank Van Goethem (ECF No. 91) are GRANTED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE against Defendants Sandra L. Maes, Nurse Williams,
Regional Medical Officer (unknown”), Regional Medical Director, Nurse 4 (last
name unknown), Grievance Coordinator BOA-HVWCF (last name unknown), and
Grievance Coordinator BOA-Bragg (last name unknown).
S/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: March 11, 2015
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, March 11, 2015, by electronic and/or U.S.
First Class mail.
S/ Richard Loury
Case Manager

5