Robinson v. Andrews et al

Filing 129

OPINION and ORDER Adopting In Part and Rejecting In Part Magistrate Judge's 125 Report and Recommendation and Granting Defendants' 45 Motion to Dismiss, 62 Motion to Dismiss and 74 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
Civil Case No. 14-11987
Honorable Linda V. Parker

v.

STEPHEN ANDREWS, TANZI COLE TABB,
MICHAEL HUGES, MICHELE R. SPIVEY,
DAVID BEATY, JOSEPH GONZALEZ, CHERYL
EVANS, RYAN P. SMITH, JAMES B. ROBERTSON,
JOAN YOUKINS, STEPHAN ANDREWS,
SHAWN BOOTH, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, LUANNE M. REAUME,
CATHOLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, PITTSFIELD TWP.
POLICE DEPARTMENT, JOHN RUBITSHUM,
KYRA BENNETT, and JIM MAUDLIN,
Defendants.
________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING IN PART AND REJECTING IN
PART MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S JULY 29, 2015 REPORT &
RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 125] AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS TO DISMISS [ECF NOS. 45, 62, & 74]
On May 19, 2014, Plaintiff commenced this action against Defendants
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants arise from his
arrest for an alleged parole violation, the revocation of his parole, and events that

Plaintiff amended his complaint on July 2, 2014, adding parole agent Kyra
Bennett and police officer Jim Maudlin as Defendants. (ECF No. 18.)
1

occurred after he was re-paroled in May 2011. The matter has been referred to
Magistrate Judge Michel Hluchaniuk for all pretrial matters. (ECF No. 40.)
On September 25, 2014, Defendants Michigan Department of Corrections
(“MDOC”) and MDOC employees Michele Spivey and Cheryl Evans, filed a
motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No.
45.) On October 31, 2014, Defendants Kyra Bennett, Michael Huges, John
Rubitshum, and Ryan Smith filed a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for
summary judgment. (ECF No. 62.) Defendant Joan Youkins filed a motion to
dismiss as well on December 2, 2014. (ECF No. 74.) On July 29, 2015,
Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk issued an R&R in which he recommends that the
Court grant all three motions. (ECF No. 125.)
Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk first concludes that Plaintiff’s claims against
Defendants Spivey, Evans, Youkins, and Rubitshum are barred by the doctrine in
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 484 (1994). (ECF No. 125 at 22-25.)
Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk next concludes that the Eleventh Amendment bars
Plaintiff’s claims against all Defendants in their official capacities. (Id. at 25-26.)
Applying the statute of limitations applicable to § 1983 claims, the magistrate
judge next holds that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Spivey, Evans,
Youkins, and Rubitshum are time-barred. (Id. at 26-29.) Because Plaintiff alleges
2

no personal involvement in the misconduct alleged in his complaint by Defendant
Ryan Smith, Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk next recommends that this Court
dismiss Plaintiff’s claim against him. Lastly, Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk
concludes that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Michael Huges and Kyra
Bennett must be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies as required by MDOC’s policies. (Id. at 30-35.)
At the conclusion of the R&R, Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk informs the
parties that they must file any objections to the R&R within fourteen days of
service. (Id. at 35-36.) He further specifically advises the parties that “[f]ailure to
file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right to appeal.” (Id. at
35.) Neither party has filed objections to the R&R.
The Court has carefully reviewed the R&R and concurs with the conclusions
reached by Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk, with the exception of his conclusion that
Plaintiff’s claims against Huges and Bennett should be dismissed with prejudice.
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a dismissal for failure to exhaust nonjudicial remedies is without prejudice. Boyd v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 380 F.3d
989, 994 (6th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). The Court therefore adopts in part and
rejects in part Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk’s July 29, 2015 Report and
Recommendation.
3

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Michigan
Department of Corrections, Cheryl Evans, and Michele R. Spivey (ECF No. 45) is
GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims against these defendants are DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss filed by
Defendants Kyra Bennett, Michael Huges, John Rubitshum, and Ryan P. Smith
(ECF No. 62) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Rubitshum
and Smith are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and Plaintiff’s claims against
Defendants Bennett and Huges are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss filed by
Defendant Joan Youkins is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claim against this
defendant is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Michigan Department of
Corrections, Michele R. Spivey, Cheryl Evans, Kyra Bennett, Michael Huges, John
Rubitshum, Ryan P. Smith, and Joan Youkins are DISMISSED AS PARTIES TO
THIS ACTION.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: September 16, 2015
4

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, September 16, 2015, by electronic and/or
U.S. First Class mail.
s/ Richard Loury
Case Manager

5