Hill et al v. Whitmer et al

Filing 32

ORDER (1) Overruling 30 Objections to 29 Report and Recommendation, (2) Adopting Recommended Disposition of 29 Report and Recommendation, and (3) Granting Defendant's 25 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HRya)

Case 4:20-cv-13440-MFL-EAS ECF No. 32, PageID.225 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ANDREW LEE-LEO HILL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 20-cv-13440
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
GRETCHEN WHITMER, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER (1) OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 30), (2) ADOPTING RECOMMENDED
DISPOSITION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 29),
AND (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 25)
Plaintiffs Andrew Lee-Leo Hill, Ramon Caldwell, and Gary Dubicke are state
prisoners confined at the Central Michigan Correctional Facility (the “CMCF”) in
St. Louis, Michigan. On December 22, 2020, Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, jointly
filed a civil-rights Complaint against the Warden of the CMCF, John Christiansen,
Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, and Heidi Washington, the Director of the
Michigan Department of Corrections. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) In the Complaint,
Plaintiffs assert several claims arising out of the conditions of their confinement at
the CMCF. (See id.) They allege, among other things, that (1) Hill did not receive
timely responses to health care requests or his annual medical checkup, (2) the
CMCF was overcrowded and unsanitary, (3) the CMCF did not sufficiently
1

Case 4:20-cv-13440-MFL-EAS ECF No. 32, PageID.226 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 7

implement social distancing protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic, (4) they
were prevented from having access to the law library and from practicing their
religion, and (5) they were served food that was carcinogenic and not fit for human
consumption. (See id.)
Upon the filing of the Complaint, the Court conducted an initial screening of
Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act. When it did so, the
Court became concerned that Plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged Defendants’
personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violations. Accordingly, on
September 7, 2021, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why their claims
should not be dismissed (the “Show Cause Order”). (See Show Cause Order, ECF
No. 12.) More specifically, the Court directed Plaintiffs to explain, among other
things, how each Defendant was personally involved in the alleged misconduct. (See
id.)
Plaintiffs then responded to the Show Cause Order and attempted to identify
the personal involvement of each Defendant. (See Resp., ECF No. 13.) Upon
reviewing Plaintiffs’ response, the Court concluded that with respect to Governor
Whitmer and Director Washington, Plaintiffs had “failed to sufficiently allege that
those Defendants were personally involved in th[e] alleged misconduct.” (Order,
ECF No. 16, PageID.96.) Thus, the Court dismissed the claims against those
Defendants. (See id., PageID.96-97.)

As to Warden Christiansen, the Court
2

Case 4:20-cv-13440-MFL-EAS ECF No. 32, PageID.227 Filed 01/17/23 Page 3 of 7

concluded that “the viability of [Plaintiffs’] claims [against him would be] best
addressed in the context of full briefing on a motion to dismiss.” (Id., PageID.97.)
On May 2, 2022, Christiansen moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims against
him. (See Mot., ECF No. 25.) He argued, among other things, that Plaintiffs failed
“to allege his personal involvement in a constitutional violation.” (Id., PageID.127.)
The motion was referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge. (See Order, ECF
No. 21.) The Magistrate Judge then reviewed the motion, Plaintiffs’ response, and
Plaintiffs’ response to the Show Cause Order. On October 26, 2022, the Magistrate
Judge issued a report and recommendation in which she recommended that the Court
grant Christiansen’s motion and dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint (the “R&R”). (See
R&R, ECF No. 29.)
The Magistrate Judge concluded that all of Plaintiffs’ claims failed because
Plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged Christiansen’s personal involvement in the
alleged constitutional violations. (See id., PageID.196-199, 204-205.) In addition,
the Magistrate Judge concluded that many of Plaintiffs’ claims also failed for other,
independent reasons. (See id., PageID.198-206.)
At the conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge informed the parties that
they could object to and seek review of the R&R by filing written objections within
fourteen days. (See id., PageID.207.) The Magistrate Judge further explained that
any objections needed to be specific. (See id.) She then warned the parties that “only
3

Case 4:20-cv-13440-MFL-EAS ECF No. 32, PageID.228 Filed 01/17/23 Page 4 of 7

[] specific objections […] are preserved for appeal; all other objections are waived.”
(Id.) Finally, the Magistrate Judge explained that each objection “must specify
precisely the provision of [the R&R] to which it pertains.” (Id.; emphasis in original).
Plaintiffs filed objections to the R&R on November 16, 2022. (See Objections, ECF
No. 30.)
The fundamental problem with Plaintiffs’ objections is that none of them
show error with the essential basis upon which the Magistrate Judge recommended
dismissing their claims: namely, their failure to plausibly allege Christiansen’s
personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violations. The closest Plaintiffs
come to addressing this recommended ground for dismissal is in their second
numbered objection to the R&R. (See id., PageID.210.) In that objection, Plaintiffs
insist that “[e]very movement that take[s] place within the facility must be approved
by the Warden making Christiansen culpable.” (Id.) But that objection fails for at
least two reasons.
First, the objection merely restates the same argument that Plaintiffs made in
opposition to Christiansen’s motion to dismiss. (See Pla.s’ Resp., ECF No. 27,
PageID.157.) However, an objection that “simply summarizes what has been
presented before[] is not an ‘objection’ as that term is used in this context.” Aldrich
v. Bock, 327 F.Supp.2d 743, 747 (E.D. Mich. 2004). See also Bradley v. United
States, 2018 WL 5084806, at *3 (6th Cir. Sept. 17, 2018) (explaining that “[a] party’s
4

Case 4:20-cv-13440-MFL-EAS ECF No. 32, PageID.229 Filed 01/17/23 Page 5 of 7

objections [to a report and recommendation] are not sufficiently specific if they
merely restate the claims made in” earlier filings).
Second, and more importantly, Plaintiffs have not identified any factual
allegations in the Complaint that, if proven, could support a finding that Christiansen
was personally involved in the alleged violations here. Moreover, Plaintiffs have
not cited any case in which a warden was found liable for an alleged constitutional
violation based solely on the fact that he was the warden of the facility where the
alleged violation took place. And there appears to be law to the contrary. See, e.g.,
Siggers v. Campbell, 652 F.3d 681, 695 (6th Cir. 2011) (affirming dismissal of
claims brought against prison warden where plaintiff had “not alleged sufficient
personal involvement by [the warden]” or alleged that the warden was “actively
engaged in unconstitutional behavior”); Lucas v. Holland, 2017 WL 4764472, at *3
(6th Cir. Sept. 26, 2017) (explaining that a “plaintiff must plead that each
Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has
violated the Constitution” and affirming dismissal of claim against prison warden
where plaintiff “failed to [] plead” warden’s personal involvement in plaintiff’s
“conditions of confinement”).
Because Plaintiffs have failed to show any error in the Magistrate Judge’s
determination that all of their claims fail due to their failure to plead personal
involvement by Christiansen, the Court will adopt the recommendation in the R&R
5

Case 4:20-cv-13440-MFL-EAS ECF No. 32, PageID.230 Filed 01/17/23 Page 6 of 7

to dismiss all of Plaintiffs’ claims against Christiansen. Dismissal on this ground is
especially appropriate given that Plaintiffs have had several opportunities – when
responding to the Show Cause Order, when responding to Christiansen’s motion to
dismiss, and when filing their objections to the R&R – to identify Christiansen’s
personal involvement in the alleged violations of their constitutional rights.
The Court does not reach Plaintiffs’ remaining objections (i.e., the objections
other than the one addressed above). Those objections address the alternate and
independent grounds on which the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing
Plaintiffs’ claims; they do not address the Magistrate Judge’s determination that
Plaintiffs failed to allege personal involvement by Christiansen. There is no need to
address the remaining objections because even if those objections had merit (a
question on which the Court takes no position), Christiansen would still be entitled
to dismissal of the claims against him based upon Plaintiffs’ failure to plead his
personal involvement.1

1

When Plaintiffs responded to the Show Cause Order, they asserted that
Christiansen was personally involved in the decision to feed Plaintiffs raw,
undercooked, and/or “not for human consumption” food because those issues were
raised during a “Warden’s Forum.” (Resp. to Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 13,
PageID.78.) The Magistrate Judge considered that argument and rejected it in the
R&R. (See R&R, ECF No. 29, PageID.204-205.) Nowhere in Plaintiffs’ objections
do Plaintiffs’ take issue with the Magistrate Judge’s determination that their
allegations concerning the Warden’s Forum do not plausibly allege personal
involvement by Christiansen. Thus, Plaintiffs (who were advised about the need to
object in order to preserve an issue for further review) have waived their argument
that Christiansen was personally involved in the alleged food deficiencies because
6

Case 4:20-cv-13440-MFL-EAS ECF No. 32, PageID.231 Filed 01/17/23 Page 7 of 7

Accordingly, for all of the reasons explained above, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED as follows:
 Plaintiffs’ objections to the R&R (ECF No. 30) are OVERRULED;
 The recommended disposition of the R&R (ECF No. 29) is ADOPTED;
 Christiansen’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED; and
 Plaintiffs’ Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: January 17, 2023
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on January 17, 2023, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Ryan
Case Manager
[phone]

issues related to food were raised at the Warden’s Forum. See Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370,
1373 (6th Cir. 1987) (explaining that “only those specific objections to the
magistrate’s report made to the district court will be preserved for appellate review;
making some objections but failing to raise others will not preserve all the objections
a party may have”).
7