Aikens v. Mack et al

Filing 35

OPINION and ORDER (1) Adopting Magistrate Judge's 33 Report and Recommendation; and (2) Granting Defendants' 21 and 30 Motions for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
AUDREY AIKENS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 15-12016
Honorable Linda V. Parker

v.
JOLANDRA MACK, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
FEBRUARY 21, 2017 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 33]
AND (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT [ECF NOS. 21, 30]
On June 3, 2015, Plaintiff Audrey Aikens commenced this civil rights action
against Defendant Jolandra Mack and Defendant Krista Boyd (collectively
“Defendants”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) In her complaint,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated her rights under the Eighth Amendment.1
(Id. at Pg ID 5.) The matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge R. Steven
Whalen for all pretrial proceedings, including a hearing and determination of all

1

Plaintiff also alleged that Defendants violated her Fourteenth Amendment rights
because “[t]he Fourteenth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.”
(ECF No. 1 at Pg ID 5.) The Eighth Amendment’s protections extend to pretrial
detainees by operation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Rouster v. Cnty. of Saginaw, 749 F.3d 437, 446 (6th Cir. 2014). Because Plaintiff
has been convicted, the Court analyzes her claim under the Eighth Amendment.

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. 7.)
I.

Background
Defendants Mack and Boyd filed motions for summary judgment on April

11, 2016 and September 30, 2016, respectively. (ECF Nos. 21 and 30.) On
February 21, 2017, Magistrate Judge Whalen issued a Report & Recommendation
(“R&R”) recommending that this Court grant Defendants’ motions for summary
judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity. (ECF No. 33.)
In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Whalen finds that Defendants are entitled to
qualified immunity because Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that she was entitled to a
constitutional right that was clearly established to the extent that a reasonable
person in the Defendant’s position would know that the conduct complained of
was unlawful. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001). Specifically,
Magistrate Judge Whalen determined that no constitutional rights were violated
when Plaintiff was denied bathroom facilities while the corrections officers
completed their rounds. (ECF No. 33 at Pg ID 224.) The magistrate judge also
found that the corrections officers were not deliberately indifferent when they
locked her in the utility closet for a short period of time. (Id. at Pg ID 223-24.)
While recognizing that Plaintiff’s request to use the restroom immediately was
2

reasonable, Magistrate Judge Whalen found that Defendants’ actions in denying
Plaintiff access to the bathroom and locking her in the closet during rounds were
reasonable under the circumstances. (Id. at Pg ID 228.)
At the end of the R&R, Magistrate Judge Whalen informs the parties that
they must file any objections within fourteen days. (Id.) He further advises that
the “[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of
appeal.” (Id., citations omitted). Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R on March
13, 2017. (ECF No. 34.)
II.

Standard of Review
When objections are filed to a magistrate judge’s R&R on a dispositive

matter, the Court “make[s] 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). The Court, however, “is not required to articulate all of the
reasons it rejects a party’s objections.” Thomas v. Halter, 131 F. Supp. 2d 942,
944 (E.D. Mich. 2001) (citations omitted). A party’s failure to file objections to
certain conclusions to an R&R waives any further right to appeal on those issues.
See Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir.
1987). Likewise, the failure to object to certain conclusions in the magistrate
judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review those
issues. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
3

III.

Analysis
In her objection, Plaintiff raises the same argument she made in her

opposition brief to Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff argues
that Defendants Mack and Boyd were “deliberately indifferent to [Plaintiffs]
urgent need of a toilet inflicting not only pain from her attempt to hold her bodily
function, but also the emotional pain and humiliation resulting from the officer’s
denial.” (ECF No. 34 at Pg ID 237.) However, Plaintiff has failed to establish
that Defendants were aware that she had a medical condition that required near
immediate bathroom use. Therefore, this Court is unable to determine that the
Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s pain.
Without a finding of deliberate indifference, Plaintiff’s claim fails. As
Magistrate Judge Whalen discussed in his R&R, there is no established right for an
inmate to have immediate access to a bathroom on demand. (ECF No. 33 at Pg ID
227; see also Abdur-Reheem-X v. McGinnis, 198 F.3d 244 (Table), 1999 WL
1045069 at *2 (6th Cir. 1999)). Without establishing a violation of a constitutional
right, Plaintiff is unable to defeat Defendants’ claims for qualified immunity. Thus
the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Whalen’s recommendation finding that
Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.
For these reasons, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s objections to Magistrate Judge
Whalen’s February 21, 2017 R&R and adopts the recommendations in the R&R.
4

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants Mack and Boyd’s motions for
summary judgment (ECF Nos. 21, 30) are GRANTED.

s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: March 27, 2017
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 27, 2017, by electronic and/or U.S.
First Class mail.
s/ Richard Loury
Case Manager

5