Courtemanche #204238 v. Czop et al
Filing
86
OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 81 ; Motion for Summary Judgment 57 is GRANTED; Defendant Pandya's Motion 60 is GRANTED; Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment 67 is DENIED; Judgment to issue; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RICHARD COURTEMANCHE,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:12-cv-841
v
HON. JANET T. NEFF
RICHARD CZOP, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff filed this prisoner civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
Defendants Czop, Pandya, and Corizon, Inc. (Corizon), claiming violations of his Eighth
Amendment rights. Defendants Czop and Corizon filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt 57).
Defendant Pandya filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment
(Dkt 60). Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt 67). The matter was referred
to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R, Dkt 81), recommending
that this Court grant Defendants’ motions and deny Plaintiff’s motion. The matter is presently
before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation (Objs., Dkt 82).
Defendants Czop and Corizon filed a response to Plaintiff’s objections (Resp., Dkt 85). 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.
Plaintiff presents three objections to the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff first argues
that the “Magistrate improperly extended inferences of fact and credibility in favor of the
1
Defendants and failed to consider the arguments, facts, affidavits, and verifiable evidence that was
presented by the Plaintiff to establish otherwise” (Objs., Dkt 83 at 3). Specifically, Plaintiff
contends that the Report and Recommendation made no reference to Plaintiff’s exhibits in the “200,”
“300,” “400” or “500” series (id. at 4).
Plaintiff’s argument is without merit. Plaintiff attached five series of exhibits to the brief in
support of his Motion for Summary Judgment: the “100 series,” which he identifies as his health
care records; the “200 series,” which he identifies as “kites/responses;” the “300 series,” which he
identifies as “miscellaneous exhibits;” the “400 series,” which he identifies as Corizon’s contract
with the Michigan Department of Corrections; and the “500 series,” which is a collection of Appeal
Standard Operating Procedures, Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) Policy Directives,
and excerpts about epilepsy and prescription drugs, which Plaintiff collectively identifies as
“Authoritative Support” (Dkt 68-1 at 1).
In the “Medical Evidence” section of the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge
expressly referenced Plaintiff’s exhibits 1 and 2, which contain his exhibit series 100 through 400,
and thoroughly summarized Plaintiff’s conditions and the medical treatment he received (R&R, Dkt
81 at 7-13). The fact that the Magistrate Judge did not expressly reference Plaintiff’s Authoritative
Support documents does not demonstrate that the Magistrate Judge “ignored” or improperly weighed
the evidence in this case. A magistrate judge need not delineate each item of evidence in a report
and recommendation in order to make a proper assessment of that evidence, and Plaintiff’s argument
reveals no factual or legal error by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s first objection is
denied.
Second, Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in rejecting his argument that
Defendants Czop and Pandya’s misconduct rose beyond malpractice, to a level of “obduracy and
2
wantonness” and “deliberate indifference” (Objs., Dkt 83 at 13). Specifically, Plaintiff argues that
the Magistrate Judge failed to assign proper weight to Defendant Czop’s wrongful cancellation of
his medication, knowing refusal to correct the error, and attempts to justify and cover up the
misconduct (id. at 15). However, Plaintiff again demonstrates no factual or legal error in the
Magistrate Judge’s analysis, only his disagreement with the physician’s decisions and the Magistrate
Judge’s assessment of the record. For this reason, and for the reasons more fully stated in Defendant
Corizon and Czop’s response to Plaintiff’s objections, Plaintiff’s second objection is also denied.
Last, Plaintiff argues that “[t]he Magistrate’s claim that Defendant ‘Corizon is not
vicariously liable’ in this matter improperly bolsters the ‘credibility’ of Corizon’s ‘assertion’ that
they are ‘not responsible’ and the Defendants’ arguments without the required consideration of the
reasonable evidence presented by the Plaintiff” (Objs., Dkt 83 at 17-18). Plaintiff also argues that
Defendant Corizon’s efforts to save costs, e.g., by denying requests for Plaintiff to see a specialist,
constitute a policy, practice, or custom in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights (id. at 18).
Plaintiff relies on Defendant Corizon’s contract with Michigan, which he opines is “rife with
statements that [Corizon’s] responsibility [is] to limit medical care for the purpose of saving cost
to the State” (id. at 16).
The Magistrate Judge applied the proper legal standard in analyzing liability against
Defendant Corizon and correctly analyzed the evidence in determining that the physicians’ treatment
decisions were made “in the exercise of their professional judgement” (R&R, Dkt 81 at 14-15).
Additionally, Plaintiff’s reference to Corizon’s contract demonstrates no error in the Magistrate
Judge’s analysis. As Defendants Corizon and Czop point out in their response to Plaintiff’s
objections, “prisoners do not have the right to limitless health care, free of the cost constraints under
3
which law abiding citizens receive treatment” (Resp., Dkt 85 at 6, quoting Winslow v. Prison Health
Servs., Inc., 406 F. App’x 671, 673 (3d Cir. 2011)).
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), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock,
549 U.S. 199, 206, 211-12 (2007). Therefore:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (Dkt 82) are DENIED and the Report and
Recommendation (Dkt 81) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Corizon and Czop’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Dkt 57) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Pandya’s Motion to Dismiss Or, in the
Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt 60) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt 67) is
DENIED.
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: March 24, 2014
/s/ Janet T. Neff
JANET T. NEFF
United States District Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?