Hannon #313200 v. Wedge et al

Filing 27

OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 22 ; Motion for Summary Judgmetn 12 is GRANTED; Judgment to issue; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANTHONY HANNON,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:11-cv-317
HON. JANET T. NEFF

v
UNKNOWN WEDGE, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER
This is a prisoner civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 involving the alleged
violation of Plaintiff’s Free Exercise rights under the First Amendment and procedural Due Process
rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing
that Plaintiff’s rights were not violated. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued
a Report and Recommendation (R & R), recommending that this Court grant Defendants’ motion.
The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and
Recommendation. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3), the Court
has performed de novo consideration of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which
objections have been made. The Court denies the objections and issues this Opinion and Order.
I
Plaintiff’s objections reiterate the following arguments contained in his complaint: (1) that
he was never in the “chow line” on August 20, 2010; (2) that his Ramadan meals were capriciously
withheld from him by prison officials, violating his First Amendment Free Exercise rights; and (3)

that he was not given a chance to be heard, violating his Fourteenth Amendment procedural due
process rights (Pl. Obj., Dkt 24 at 2-7).
A.

Summary Judgment

Contrary to Plaintiff’s first argument, the Magistrate Judge properly applied the summary
judgment standard in recommending this Court grant Defendants’ motion. Summary judgment is
appropriate when the non-moving party has failed to show sufficient evidence in support of an
essential element of that party’s claim or defense where the party will bear the burden of proof at
trial (R &R, Dkt 22 at 4). Daniels v. Woodside, 396 F.3d 730, 735 (6th Cir. 2005). The allegation
that a jury may believe the non-moving party and disbelieve the movant is insufficient to create a
genuine issue of material fact (R &R, Dkt 22 at 4). Fogerty v. MGM Group Holdings Corp., 379
F.3d 348, 353-54 (6th Cir. 2004).
Here, the only fact in dispute is whether Plaintiff ate in the regular meal hall on August 20,
2010. Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in accepting as true the statement in
Defendant Wedge’s affidavit that Wedge observed Plaintiff in the “chow line” on August 20, 2010
(Pl. Obj., Dkt 24 at 2; R & R, Dkt 22 at 7). However, because Plaintiff failed to offer proofs other
than his unsupported contentions (1) that he did not eat in the “chow line” on August 20, 2010; and
(2) that Defendants are lying when they state that he did eat in the regular meal hall, the Magistrate
Judge properly recommended this Court grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff’s objection is denied.
B.

First Amendment

Second, Plaintiff reiterates that his removal from the Ramadan meal list violated his First
Amendment Rights (Pl. Obj., Dk 24 at 2-3). Although Plaintiff does not make a specific objection
to any finding of the Magistrate Judge, the Court nonetheless determines that the Magistrate Judge

2

properly applied the Turner factors to conclude that the denial of special Ramadan meals to Plaintiff
did not violate his First Amendment rights (R & R, Dkt 22 at 6-10). Turner mandates that for a
prison policy that impacts a prisoner’s religious liberty to be constitutional, there must be a rational
connection between the policy and a legitimate penological interest. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78,
89 (1987). Defendant Michael Martin’s proffered justification of the policy of the Michigan
Department of Corrections (MDOC) denying special Ramadan meals to prisoners who violate the
fast1 supports the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the MDOC’s policy furthers the government’s
legitimate penological interests (R & R, Dkt 22 at 9; Aff., Dkt 14, Ex. L at 2-3). Therefore,
Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights have not been violated. Plaintiff’s objection is denied.
C.

Fourteenth Amendment

Last, Plaintiff reiterates his position that prison officials denied him due process of law in
removing him from the Ramadan meal list (Pl. Obj., Dkt 24 at 3-5). The Due Process Clause is
implicated when the state deprives a person of a constitutionally protected liberty or property
interest. Brentwood Acad. v. Tennessee Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 442 F.3d 410, 433 (6th Cir.
2006), rev’d on other grounds, 551 U.S. 291 (2007). Prisoners have narrower liberty interests than
other citizens as “lawful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many
privileges and rights, a retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system.”
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 485 (1995) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that because Plaintiff has no constitutionally
protected interest in the special Ramadan meal, Plaintiff’s procedural due process rights were not
violated (R & R, Dkt 22 at 12). Further, as the Magistrate Judge noted, even if Plaintiff was

1

Ramadan is a month-long Muslim holiday during which adherents abstain from eating
from sunrise to sunset.
3

deprived of a constitutionally protected interest, Plaintiff’s argument that he was denied due process
of law is without merit (R & R, Dkt 22 at 13). Procedural due process requires that an individual
be given a right to be heard “at a meaningful time in a meaningful manner” (R & R, Dkt 22 at 12).
Mertik v. Blalock, 983 F.2d 1353, 1364 (6th Cir. 1993) (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319,
333 (1976)). The Magistrate Judge correctly reasoned that Plaintiff’s interview with prison officials,
following his filing of a grievance, satisfied the requirements of procedural due process. Plaintiff’s
argument, therefore, is without merit, and his objection is denied.
II
Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the
Opinion of this Court. A Judgment will be entered consistent with this Opinion and Order. See FED.
R. CIV. P. 58. Because this action was filed in forma pauperis, this Court certifies, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. See McGore
v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610 (6th Cir. 1997). Therefore:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (Dkt 24) are DENIED and the Report and
Recommendation (Dkt 22) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt 12) is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that
an appeal of the Judgment would not be taken in good faith.

Dated: January 11, 2012

/s/ Janet T. Neff
JANET T. NEFF
United States District Judge

4