Young v. Jackson et al

Filing 101

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER Adopting the Magistrate's 86 Report and Recommendation, Granting Defendant's Amended Renewed 81 Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Defendant's Renewed 80 Motion for Summary Judgment as Moot - AND - ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Renewed 97 Motion to File an Amended Response to Defendant's Amended Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment - Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (FMos)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Ardra Young,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 12-cv-12751
Hon. Judith E. Levy
Mag. Judge Mona K. Majzoub

LaToya Jackson, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE’S
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION [86] GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED RENEWED MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [81] AND DENYING
DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION FOR [80]
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS MOOT
&
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION TO FILE
AN AMENDED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED
RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [97]
Plaintiff Ardra Young, a prisoner at the Carson City Correctional
Facility, filed this action on June 22, 2012, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against

LaToya

Jackson,

Vindha

Jayawardena,

the

Michigan

Department of Corrections (“MDOC”), and Prison Healthcare Services,

Inc., operating as Corizon Health, Inc. (“Corizon”), alleging that
defendants violated the Eighth Amendment when they did not properly
treat his knee following a fall. (Dkt. 1). Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint on September 28, 2012. (Dkt. 16).
Before the Court are plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 94) and plaintiff’s request to
file an amended response to defendant’s amended renewed motion for
summary judgment. (Dkt. 97).
For the reasons set forth below, the Court will ADOPT the Report
and Recommendation and enter it as the findings and conclusions of
this Court.

Defendant’s amended renewed motion for summary

judgment shall accordingly be GRANTED, defendant’s renewed motion
for summary judgment shall be DENIED as moot, and plaintiff’s
renewed motion to file an amended response shall be DENIED.
I.

Factual Background
The Report and Recommendation sets out the facts of the case in a

clear fashion, and the Court adopts them as they have been previously
set forth.

2

II.

Procedural Background
This case was previously assigned to Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. On

March 20, 2013, Judge Tarnow granted defendant MDOC’s motion to
dismiss (Dkt. 31), and on March 31, 2014, he partially granted
defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims again
defendants Jackson and Jayawardena. (Dkt. 73). The claims against
Corizon remained because the Court found that unresolved discovery
motions against Corizon could potentially bolster plaintiff’s claim that
Corizon implemented a policy, custom, or practice that violated
plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights. (Id. at 8). These discovery issues
were resolved on May 5, 2014, when Judge Tarnow ordered Corizon to
respond to plaintiff’s interrogatory asking defendant to state whether
any state had withdrawn from or refused to renew a contract with
Corizon due to Corizon’s failure to provide adequate medical care to its
prisoners. (Dkt. 77 at 8-9). Corizon responded to this interrogatory on
May 22, 2014, stating:
Corizon Health, Inc. (“Corizon”) cannot speculate as to any
reasons for a state agency and/or department withdrawing
from or opting not to renew a contract. Subject to this
reservation, Corizon has conducted a diligent search of its
records relating to contracts between Corizon and state
agencies and/or departments with which it has done
3

business over the past ten years. To the best of its
knowledge, belief and information, no state agency and/or
department has informed Corizon that it was withdrawing
from or opting not to renew a contract with Corizon or its
predecessor, Prison Healthcare Services, Inc., based on
allegations that Corizon provided inadequate care to
prisoners.
(Dkt. 79-1 at 2).
Defendant Corizon, the only remaining defendant in this matter,
filed a renewed motion for summary judgment on June 27, 2014, and an
amended renewed motion for summary judgment on June 30, 2014.
(Dkts. 80 & 81).

On December 4, 2014, the Magistrate Judge

recommended that the Court grant defendant’s amended renewed
motion for summary judgment and noted that plaintiff failed to respond
to defendant’s motion. (Dkt. 86).

The Magistrate Judge based her

recommendation on the fact that, even after a period of discovery,
plaintiff had failed to provide any evidence that Corizon’s treatment
decisions were based on an unconstitutional policy, custom, or practice.
Id.; see Ford v. Cnty of Grand Traverse, 535 F.3d 483, 495 (6th Cir.
2008).
On December 18, 2014, this Court granted plaintiff’s motion to
extend time to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

4

Recommendation. (Dkt. 91). Plaintiff filed his objections on January 7,
2015. (Dkt. 94).
III. Standard of Review
District courts review de novo those portions of a report and
recommendation to which a specific objection has been made. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C). “De novo review in these circumstances entails at least a
review of the evidence that faced the magistrate judge; the Court may
not act solely on the basis of a report and recommendation.” Spooner v.
Jackson, 321 F. Supp. 2d 867, 868-69 (E.D. Mich. 2004).
Objections to the report must not be overly general, such as
objections

that

dispute

the

correctness

of

the

report

and

recommendation but fail to specify findings believed to be in error.
Spencer v. Bouchard, 449 F.3d 721, 725 (6th Cir. 2006); see also Howard
v. Sec’y of HHS, 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). “The objections must
be clear enough to enable the district court to discern those issues that
are dispositive and contentious.” Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th
Cir. 1995).
Summary judgment is proper where “the movant shows that there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled

5

to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The Court may
not grant summary judgment if “the evidence is such that a reasonable
jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”

Anderson v.

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248. The Court “views the evidence,
all facts, and any inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Pure Tech Sys., Inc. v.
Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 95 F. App'x 132, 135 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing
Skousen v. Brighton High Sch., 305 F.3d 520, 526 (6th Cir.2002)).
IV.

Analysis

To find defendant Corizon liable for violations of the Eighth
Amendment under § 1983, plaintiff must establish that (1) his Eighth
Amendment rights were violated by a policy, custom, or practice
implemented by the defendant, and (2) the plaintiff’s alleged harm was
caused by that policy, custom, or practice. Starcher v. Corr. Med. Sys.,
Inc., 7 Fed.App’x. 459, 465 (6th Cir. 2001); Garner v. Memphis Police
Dep’t, 8 F.3d 358, 363-64 (6th Cir.1993) (a plaintiff must identify the
policy, connect the policy to the defendant and show that the particular
injury was caused because of the execution of that policy).

6

Plaintiff has objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation based on the following grounds:
Objection 1: The Report and Recommendation should be
rejected in its entirety where the Magistrate Judge did not
receive plaintiff’s timely-filed Response to Defendant’s
Amended Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment.
Objection 2: Plaintiff should be permitted to file an
Amended Renewed Response to Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment in light of the fact that the Magistrate
Judge issued her [Report and Recommendation] without the
benefit of Plaintiff’s Response pleading.
(Dkt. 94).

The Court will address these objections together as they

essentially address the same substantive issue.
As previously noted, the Magistrate Judge recommended a
dismissal of plaintiff’s claims against defendant Corizon because
plaintiff failed to meet the first requirement of showing evidence of an
unconstitutional custom, policy, or procedure. (Dkt. 86 at 11-12). Prior
to the issuance of this Report and Recommendation, the Court provided
plaintiff with an opportunity to support his claim that Corizon’s
decision was based on a policy, custom, or practice by partially granting
his motion to compel and ordering Corizon to respond to plaintiff’s
Interrogatory Number Five. Corizon’s response to this interrogatory
indicated that it could not find any evidence that any state had
7

previously withdrawn from or refused to renew a contract based on
Corizon’s failure to provide adequate medical care. (Dkt. 79-1 at 2).
Accordingly, the Magistrate found that there was no evidence to
support the claim that Corizon based its treatment decisions on an
unconstitutional policy, custom, or practice. (Dkt. 86 at 12).
Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge would have ruled
differently had she seen his response to defendant’s motion. The only
evidence plaintiff refers to in his objections are two affidavits from other
prisoners. (Dkt. 94 at 6). These affidavits allegedly show that at least
two other inmates at the Carson City Correctional Facility were denied
treatment for knee injuries based upon defendant’s “practice of denying
such [treatment] for financial considerations.” (Id.) The first affiant
claims that he had a knee injury, requested treatment, and only
received ice and Ace bandages to treat his pain. (Dkt. 87 at 8-9). The
second affiant claims that he made several requests for treatment of
knee pain that went unanswered. (Id.) Even if the Court were to grant
plaintiff’s request to submit an amended renewed response and the
Magistrate Judge had the opportunity to review these affidavits, there
would still be no evidence before the Court to show that Corizon

8

engaged in an unconstitutional policy, custom, or practice because these
affidavits rely on hearsay with respect to Corizon’s alleged motive for
denying certain treatment. Furthermore, they do not otherwise show
improper treatment that supports a finding of a policy, custom, or
practice that is unconstitutional because they merely allege that two
inmates had knee injuries and that they were dissatisfied with the
treatment they received.
Allowing plaintiff to file an amended response with this additional
information would be futile.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above,
The Court REJECTS plaintiff’s objections and ADOPTS the
Magistrate’s Order Granting Defendant’s Amended Renewed Motion for
Summary Judgment and Denying Defendant’s Renewed Motion for
Summary Judgment as moot.
Plaintiff’s Motion to File an Amended Response to Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as futile.
Plaintiff’s remaining claims against defendant Corizon are
DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated: February 23, 2015
Ann Arbor, Michigan

s/Judith E. Levy
JUDITH E. LEVY
United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon
counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF
System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on February 23, 2015.
s/Felicia M. Moses
FELICIA M. MOSES
Case Manager

10