Watson v. Jamsen et al

Filing 37

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 16 Motion to Defer Summary Judgment - Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. (CCie)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DERRYL WATSON, Plaintiff, No. 16-13770 v. District Judge Linda V. Parker Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen CHARLES JAMSEN, ET AL., Defendants. / ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Defer Summary Judgment [Doc. #16], in which he asks to defer ruling on Defendant Landfair’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. #10] until he has had the opportunity for more discovery. Defendant Landfair’s motion is based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Plaintiff states that he cannot respond to the motion without reviewing his medical records. But the affirmative defense of exhaustion is based on the question of whether the Plaintiff strictly complied with the Michigan Department of Corrections’s grievance procedure, not on the substantive content of medical records or any other discovery. A dismissal based on nonexhaustion is not a decision on the merits, and such dismissal is without prejudice. Knuckles El v. Toombs, 215 F.3d 640 (6th Cir.2000); McCloy v. Correctional Medical Services, 794 F.Supp.2d 743, 751 (E.D.Mich. 2011). -1- Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Defer Summary Judgment is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 11, 2017 s/R. Steven Whalen R. STEVEN WHALEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify on August 11, 2017 that I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the Clerk of the Court sending notification of such filing to all counsel registered electronically. I hereby certify that a copy of this paper was mailed to non-registered ECF participants August 11, 2017. s/Carolyn M. Ciesla Case Manager for the Honorable R. Steven Whalen -2-

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?