Whitfield #204557 v. Whalen et al

Filing 18

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 15 , 9 ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, sdb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN S O U T H E R N DIVISION

D A N IE L WHITFIELD #204557, P l a in tif f , F ile No. 1:07-CV-399 v. H O N . ROBERT HOLMES BELL M IC H A E L WHALEN, et al., D e f e n d a n ts . / ORDER T h is matter is before the Court for de novo review of Defendants' objections to the R e p o rt and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Joseph G. Scoville. (Dkt. No. 1 5 , R&R; Dkt. No. 16, Pl.'s Objections.) On April 23, 2007, Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a complaint alleging that Defendants did not provide adequate medical care for his injured to e . (Dkt. No. 1.) On July 9, 2007, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the b asis that Plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies. (Dkt. No. 9.) On January 1 8 , 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued an R&R recommending that Defendants' motion for su m m a ry judgment be denied. (Dkt. No. 15.) On January 31, 2008, Defendants filed their o b je c tio n s to the R&R. (Dkt. No. 16.) T h e Court is required to make a de novo review upon the record of those portions of th e R&R to which specific objections have been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On de

n o v o review, the Court concurs with the conclusion of the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff has e x h a u ste d his administrative remedies with respect to the claims in his complaint. In their objections to the R&R, Defendants reiterate that Plaintiff did not name any D e f e n d a n ts or specific instances in his grievance, and contend that because of the failure to d o so, "[t]here is no way that the Defendants in this case would know that Plaintiff believed th a t they did anything wrong, or when." (Dkt. No. 16, Defs.' Objections 4.) However, notice to individuals of possible claims against them is not the "primary purpose" of the grievance p ro c e s s . See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 127 S. Ct. 910, 923 (2007) ("`We are mindful that th e primary purpose of a grievance is to alert prison officials to a problem, not to provide p e rs o n a l notice to a particular official that he may be sued; the grievance is not a summons a n d complaint that initiates adversarial litigation[.]'") (quoting Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 5 0 3 , 522 (5th Cir. 2004)). Moreover, it appears that prison officials were alerted to Defendants' involvement in th e issues alleged by Plaintiff in his grievance. In his Step I grievance, Plaintiff generally a lle g e d "inadequate and ineffective" medical assistance as well as delay of medical a ss is ta n c e by "Health Service personell [sic]" over a course of several months. (Dkt. No. 1 , Pl.'s Compl., Ex. F.) Plaintiff specifically mentioned the kites that he sent to prison o f f ic ia ls requesting care (which, according to Plaintiff's complaint, were reviewed by D e f en d a n ts Barrett and Whalen), and the response to Plaintiff's Step I grievance mentions th e "approximately seven times" that Plaintiff was evaluated by a nurse (which, according

2

to Plaintiff's complaint, appears to include Defendants Hamilton, Hix, Biesiada, and Kelley). (D k t. No. 1, Pl.'s Compl., Ex. F.) This is not a case where Plaintiff named some individuals in his grievance to the exclusion of others. See Price v. Caruso, No. 1:07-CV-117, 2008 WL 4 4 1 2 5 4 at *2 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 14, 2008) (unpublished) ("When a grievance specifically n a m e s parties [to the exclusion of others] it puts only those parties on notice of a claim a g a in s t them, and it does not serve the same notice function that a general grievance w o u ld ." ). In the instant case, Plaintiff did not name any specific individuals, but stated a g e n e ra l grievance regarding the inadequate medical care received from health care personnel o v e r the course of several months. Nevertheless, the prison officials appear to have been a w a re of the multiple instances of medical care involving Defendants, and, from a procedural p e rs p e c tiv e , the prison officials apparently determined that the grievance was in sufficient f o r m to be addressed on the merits. T h e Court also agrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that, because the prison o ff icials decided Plaintiff's claim on the merits, they apparently determined that Plaintiff's g rie v a n ce satisfied the relevant "critical procedural rules." See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 8 1 , 90 (2006) ("Proper exhaustion demands compliance with an agency's deadlines and other c ritica l procedural rules . . . ."). Thus, the claims in the Plaintiff's complaint were properly e x h a u s te d . See Griswold v. Morgan, 317 F. Supp. 2d 226, 230 (W.D.N.Y. 2004) (holding th a t an untimely grievance is exhausted when it is considered on the merits); Ellis v. V a d la m u d i, No. 07-10773, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55858, at *21 (E.D. Mich. July 10, 2008)

3

( u n p u b lis h e d ) (citing cases holding that a prison complaint considered on the merits is ex h au sted ) ; see also Woodford, 548 U.S. at 92 (comparing Prison Litigation Reform Act e x h a u stio n to exhaustion for habeas review); Haliym v. Mitchell, 492 F.3d 680, 691 (6th Cir. 2 0 0 7 ) (stating, in the context of habeas review, that "[i]f the state court considered P e titio n e r's alleged error on the merits notwithstanding the fact that it was not timely filed, th e n the state court's determination does not rest on a procedural ground that bars federal re v ie w ." ). Having reviewed the objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate J u d g e under a de novo standard, the Court concludes that Defendants' motion for summary ju d g m e n t should be denied. Accordingly, I T IS HEREBY ORDERED that the January 18, 2008, Report and Recommendation o f the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 15) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the opinion of the C o u rt. I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. N o . 9) and objections to the R&R (Dkt. No. 16) are DENIED.

Date:

September 30, 2008

/s/ Robert Holmes Bell ROBERT HOLMES BELL U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4