Sutton v. Glennie et al

Filing 34

OPINION and ORDER Rejecting Plaintiff's and Defendants' Objections to Magistrate Judge's 31 Report and Recommendation, and Granting In Part and Denying In Part Defendants' 25 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
J.T. SUTTON,
Plaintiff,
Civil Case No. 16-cv-10949
Honorable Linda V. Parker

v.
BLASIE GLENNIE, L. SCHUMACHER,
G. WILSON, HOPKINS,
Defendants.
______________________/

OPINION AND ORDER REJECTING PLAINTIFF’S AND DEFENDANTS’
OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
alleges violations of his rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments
based on his loss of a prison job, transfer to a different facility, and the physical
harm inflicted upon him by a fellow prisoner. On September 9, 2016, Defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 25.) The matter has been
assigned to Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis for all pretrial proceedings
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). (ECF No. 8.)
On August 11, 2017, Magistrate Judge Davis issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) in which she recommends that this Court grant in part
and deny in part Defendants’ motion. (ECF. No. 31.) Magistrate Judge Davis first

concludes that Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to his
claims that Defendants retaliated against him by transferring him to another prison
facility and that Defendants failed to heed his requests for a cell change before his
cellmate assaulted him. (Id. at 12.) Magistrate Judge Davis finds, however, that
Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his claims
related to his prison job. (Id. at 13-14.)
Turning to the merits of Plaintiff’s retaliation claim, Magistrate Judge Davis
concludes that he does not allege an adverse action sufficient to support the claim.
(Id. at 16-18.) With respect to Plaintiff’s negligence claim, which is set forth along
with his retaliation claim in count three of his Complaint, Magistrate Judge Davis
first notes that this state law theory of liability is not developed. (Id. at 18-19 n.2.)
For that reason and because Magistrate Judge Davis concluded that no material
issues remain on Plaintiff’s retaliation theory, she recommends that the Court also
dismiss his state law negligence claim. (Id.) Magistrate Judge Davis concludes,
however, that Plaintiff presents sufficient facts to support his Eighth Amendment
claim against Defendants Wilson and Hopkins, but not Defendant Schumacher.
(Id. at 20-23.)
At the conclusion of the R&R, Magistrate Judge Davis informs the parties of
their right to file objections. Defendants filed objections to the R&R on August

2

25, 2017. (ECF No. 32.) Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R on August 31,
2017, which Plaintiff signed and dated on August 24, 2017. (ECF No. 33.)
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 of the 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 R&R releases the court from its duty to review independently those issues.
See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
Objection & Analysis
Defendants assert one objection to the R&R. Specifically, Defendants argue
that Magistrate Judge Davis erred in concluding that Plaintiff exhausted his
administrative remedies with respect to his Eighth Amendment claim against
Defendants Schumacher and Hopkins. Defendants maintain that Plaintiff did not

3

allege any misconduct by Defendant Schumacher in his grievance or appeals and
did not allege any misconduct by Defendant Hopkins until his Step III appeal.
Magistrate Judge Davis concluded that Plaintiff failed to state a claim
against Defendant Schumacher. Therefore, the Court finds it unnecessary to
address Defendants’ objection as to him. With respect to Defendant Hopkins, the
Court disagrees with Defendants that Plaintiff did not allege misconduct by him
until his Step III appeal. When he filed Grievance 14-01-0206-17i, Plaintiff
indicated and attached a copy of the letter he sent to Defendant Hopkins requesting
a cell change. (ECF No. 25-3 at Pg ID 123, 127.) The Step I Grievance Response
reflects that the investigator understood Plaintiff to be grieving conduct by
Defendant Hopkins, as well as Defendant Wilson. (Id. at Pg ID 125.)
Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Davis’ recommendation to dismiss his
state law negligence claim. (ECF No. 33.) Plaintiff contends that he did not
address this claim in response to Defendants’ summary judgment motion because
Defendants themselves did not address the claim. Plaintiff objects to Magistrate
Judge Davis’ characterization of his claim as a retaliation claim. Plaintiff asserts
that he is basing his state law negligence claim only on Defendants’ failure to
protect him from his cellmate’s assault. Even when liberally construed, however,
Plaintiff states his “negligence” claim in count three of his Complaint as based
only on the facts supporting his retaliation claim. (See ECF No. 1 at Pg ID 10.)
4

Nowhere in the Complaint does Plaintiff assert a negligence claim based on
Defendants’ alleged failure to protect him from his cellmate’s attack. The Court
therefore rejects Plaintiff’s objection to Magistrate Judge Davis’ analysis of his
negligence claim.
Conclusion
For these reasons, the Court rejects the parties’ objections to Magistrate
Judge Davis’ August 11, 2017 R&R. The Court, therefore, adopts the magistrate
judge’s recommendations in the R&R.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART in that: (a) Plaintiff’s claims
alleging a First Amendment violation and retaliation/negligent tort are dismissed
with prejudice; (b) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant
Schumacher, only, is dismissed with prejudice; and (3) Defendants Glennie and
Schumacher are dismissed without prejudice.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: September 13, 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, September 13, 2017, by electronic and/or

5

U.S. First Class mail.
s/ R. Loury
Case Manager

6