Young v. Jackson et al

Filing 85

ORDER Adopting the Magistrate's Denial of Plaintiff's 64 Motions to Amend His Complaint 41 , 49 and Denying Plaintiff's 76 Motion for Reconsideration - 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.
________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE’S DENIAL [64]OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO AMEND HIS COMPLAINT [41 & 49]
AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION [76]
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, and Prison Healthcare Services, Inc.,
alleging they 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 is plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider the Court’s
Order Adopting in Part the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation
Partially Granting Summary Judgment. (Dkt. 76).
A. Background
On June 13, 2013, plaintiff submitted a Motion to File a Second
Amended Complaint in order to add a new defendant to the case
(Warden Raymond Booker). (Dkt. 41). On September 16, 2013, plaintiff
filed a Motion to Strike the Motion and, instead, filed a different Second
Amended Complaint, which proposed to add the new defendant and an
Equal Protection claim against the existing defendants. (Dkt. 49). On
November 12, 2013, Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub denied
plaintiff’s motions in a Report and Recommendation.

(Dkt. 64).

Plaintiff objected to this decision on November 26, 2013, arguing that
the Magistrate erred in finding that plaintiff’s proposed amendments
were futile because they failed to state a claim. (Dkt. 67). The Court
has not addressed this objection in any of its subsequent orders.
On March 31, 2014, Judge Arthur J. Tarnow entered an Order
(Dkt. 73) adopting in part the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 65),
granting in part and denying in part defendants LaToya Jackson,

2

Vindha Jayawardena, and Corizon Health, Inc.’s (f/k/a Prison
Healthcare Services, Inc.) Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. 52).
The Court granted defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to
defendants Jackson and Jayawardena and denied the motion without
prejudice as to defendant Corizon.
Plaintiff filed his Motion for Reconsideration on April 11, 2014.
Plaintiff argues that the Court erred because it never addressed
plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation
Denying Plaintiff’s Motions to Amend.
B. Objections to Denial of Motions to Amend
The Court first addresses plaintiff’s November 2013 objections to
the Magistrate’s Order denying plaintiff’s Motions to Amend. A denial
of a motion to amend is a non-dispositive order.
636(b)(1)(A); E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(e)(2).

See 28 U.S.C. §

This Court's review of non-

dispositive orders issued by a magistrate judge are governed by the
terms of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). This section states in relevant part:
“A judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial matter under this
subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's

3

order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure further provides:
When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party's claim or
defense is referred to a magistrate judge to hear and decide,
the magistrate judge must promptly conduct the required
proceedings and, when appropriate, issue a written order
stating the decision. A party may serve and file objections to
the order within 14 days after being served with a copy. A
party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely
objected to. The district judge in the case must consider
timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the
order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a).
“A finding is “clearly erroneous” when although there is evidence
to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
United States v. Mabry, 518 F.3d 442, 449 (6th Cir.2008) (quoting
United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct.
525, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948)). The magistrate judge's legal conclusions are
reviewed under the “contrary to law” standard. Gandee v. Glaser, 785
F.Supp. 684, 686 (S.D.Ohio 1992), aff'd,19 F.3d 1432 (6th Cir.Mar.14,
1994) (Table). The “contrary to law” standard requires this Court to
exercise

“independent

judgment”
4

in

determining

whether

the

magistrate judge's legal conclusions “contradict or ignore applicable
precepts of law, as found in the Constitution, statutes, or case
precedent.” Id. at 686 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
The Court has carefully and thoroughly reviewed the record. The
Magistrate Judge’s decision is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to
law.

The Magistrate Judge correctly interpreted and applied the

relevant authority, including her findings that (1) adding defendant
Booker to the complaint would be futile as plaintiff failed to state a
claim; and (2) adding an Equal Protection clause claim would be futile
as plaintiff failed to allege any facts to show that defendants had no
rational basis for its treatment of plaintiff.
C. Motion for Reconsideration
Having considered plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate’s Report
and Recommendation on Plaintiff’s Motions to Amend, the Court denies
plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider.
D. Conclusion
For the reasons state above,
The Court REJECTS plaintiff’s objections and ADOPTS the
Magistrate’s Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motions to Amend.

5

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 29, 2014
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 August 29, 2014.
s/Felicia M. Moses__________
FELICIA M. MOSES
Case Manager

6