Sutton v. Glennie et al
Filing
75
OPINION and ORDER Adopting Magistrate Judge's 74 Report and Recommendation, and Granting In Part and Denying In Part Defendants' 64 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 ADOPTING 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. What
remains is Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants Geraldine Wilson and Arlinda Hopkins
violated Plaintiff’s Eight Amendment rights by failing to protect him from an
attack by a fellow prisoner. 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 October 1, 2018, Defendants Wilson
and Hopkins filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 64.) Magistrate
Judge Davis issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on June 7, 2019,
recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ motion.
(ECF No. 74.)
Specifically, Magistrate Judge Davis concludes that there is a genuine issue
of material fact with regard to whether Defendant Wilson was deliberately
indifferent to a serious risk of harm to Plaintiff. Magistrate Judge Davis finds,
however, that Plaintiff’s claim for damages against Defendant Wilson in her
official capacity must be dismissed. With respect to Defendant Hopkins,
Magistrate Judge Davis finds no facts to support Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference
claim against her. Magistrate Judge Davis therefore recommends that the Court
grant summary judgment to Defendant Hopkins, but deny summary judgment to
Defendant Wilson except to the extent she is sued for damages in her official
capacity.
At the conclusion of the R&R, Magistrate Judge Davis informs the parties of
their right to file objections within fourteen days of service. Magistrate Judge
Davis warns the parties that the “[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a
waiver of any further right of appeal.” (Id. at 34, citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir.
1981).) Neither party filed objections to the R&R.
The Court has carefully reviewed Magistrate Judge Davis’ June 7, 2019
R&R and concurs in her resolution of Defendants’ motion. Therefore, the Court is
adopting her recommendations.
Accordingly,
2
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF
No. 64) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART in that Plaintiff’s
claims against Defendant Hopkins are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and she
is DISMISSED AS A PARTY to this lawsuit and Plaintiff’s claims against
Defendant Wilson for damages in her official capacity, only, are DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: July 12, 2019
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, July 12, 2019, by electronic and/or
U.S. First Class mail.
s/ R. Loury
Case Manager
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?