Passarelli v. Shaw

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER Adopting the Magistrate Judge's 18 Report and Recommendatiion, Granting Defendant's 14 Motion for Summary Judgment, Denying 21 Motion to Stay, and Denying [22[ Motion to Compel - Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (FMos)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
William Passarelli,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-cv-13655
Hon. Judith E. Levy
Mag. Judge Mona K. Majzoub

v.
Chris Shaw,
Defendant.
________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [18], GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [14],
DENYING MOTION TO STAY [21], AND DENYING MOTION TO
COMPEL [22]
Plaintiff William Passarelli is a prisoner at the Alger Correctional
Facility in Munising, Michigan. He filed this action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 against defendant Chris Shaw, an officer with the Michigan
Department of Corrections (“MDOC”), over events that occurred at the
St. Louis Correctional Facility while plaintiff was incarcerated there.
Plaintiff’s claim appears to be that the conditions of his confinement
violated his Eighth Amendment rights; specifically, that defendant “put
the Plaintiff’s life in great danger when he had given the Plaintiff’s
1

information to another inmate.”

(Dkt. 1, Compl. 3.)

Plaintiff seeks

$500,000 in damages, termination of defendant’s employment with
MDOC, and counseling from MDOC. (Id.)
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub’s Report
and Recommendation, issued on June 12, 2015. (Dkt. 18.) Magistrate
Judge Majzoub recommends the Court grant defendant Chris Shaw’s
motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 14).

Plaintiff timely filed

objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. 19.)
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 motion for summary judgment will accordingly
be granted. Because this order will close the case, defendant’s pending
motion to stay discovery (Dkt. 21) and plaintiff’s motion to compel
discovery (Dkt. 22) will be denied as moot.
I.

Factual Background
The factual background is fully set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s

Report and Recommendation and is adopted here.

2

II.

Standard of Review
Objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation

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).
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).
III. Analysis
A prisoner bringing a claim based on his conditions of confinement
must show that the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to the
prisoner’s health or safety.

Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 32-3
3

(1993).

Establishing deliberate indifference requires both a showing

that the condition is an “extreme deprivation,” Hudson v. McMillian,
503 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1992), and that the defendant “perceived facts from
which to infer substantial risk to the prisoner, that he did in fact draw
the inference, and that he then disregarded that risk.”

Quigley v.

Tuong Vinh Thai, 707 F.3d 675, 681 (6th Cir. 2013).
Plaintiff claims defendant gave plaintiff’s identifying information
to another inmate in order to “get the Plaintiff assaulted.” (Dkt. 1 at 3.)
The Magistrate Judge found plaintiff has submitted no evidence
supporting this allegation.

(Dkt. 18, Report & Recommendation 7.)

Plaintiff objects to this finding on the ground that he “in fact knows”
that defendant gave plaintiff’s personal information to another inmate,
in order to cause plaintiff to be assaulted. (Dkt. 19, Objection 1-2.)
Plaintiff’s assertion that he “in fact knows” this happened is not
evidence supporting plaintiff’s factual claim that defendant revealed
plaintiff’s personal information.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

The

Magistrate Judge further found plaintiff has failed to provide evidence
that defendant was aware of any threat to plaintiff’s safety. (Dkt. 18 at
7-8.)

Upon thorough examination of the record, the Court agrees.
4

Absent evidence that defendant gave plaintiff’s personal information to
another inmate, or that defendant knew of a threat to plaintiff’s safety,
plaintiff’s claim cannot succeed.
IV.

Conclusion
Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

(Dkt. 18) is ADOPTED;
Defendant’s

motion

for

summary

judgment

(Dkt.

14)

is

GRANTED;
Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice;
Defendant’s motion to stay discovery (Dkt. 21) is DENIED as
moot; and
Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery (Dkt. 22) is DENIED as
moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 3, 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
5

ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on August 3, 2015.

s/Felicia M. Moses
FELICIA M. MOSES
Case Manager

6