Thompson #726007 v. Unknown Part(y)(ies)
Filing
69
OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 61 , Defendant's motion for summary judgment 28 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LANIER THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:12-cv-1327
v
HON. JANET T. NEFF
UNKNOWN SISSON, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a prisoner civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 4, 2013,
this Court dismissed two defendants and allowed service of the complaint on Defendants Sisson,
Fair and Richardson (Op. & Or., Dkts 16 & 17). On April 16, 2013, Defendants Sisson, Fair and
Richardson moved for summary judgment, arguing that they were entitled to dismissal based on
Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies (Dkt 28). Plaintiff responded to the motion
(Dkts 34, 57 & 60), and Defendants filed a reply (Dkt 39). The matter was referred to the Magistrate
Judge, and, on December 10, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that this Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ motion (R&R, Dkt 61).
The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation
(Objs., Dkt 62). 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.
The Magistrate Judge determined that with respect to Plaintiff’s allegations against
Defendant Sisson regarding the alleged events of November 2, 2012, Defendant Sisson has failed
to establish that Plaintiff has not properly exhausted his administrative remedies (R&R, Dkt 61 at
8-9). Specifically, the Magistrate Judge found the existence of a genuine issue of material fact on
the question whether Plaintiff requested a grievance form and submitted the grievance in question,
a copy of which was provided by Plaintiff (R&R, Dkt 61 at 8; Aff., Dkt 33 at 1; Attach., Dkt 33-1
at 6). As to Defendants Richardson and Fair, however, the Magistrate Judge determined that they
carried their burden of demonstrating that Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust the claims asserted
against them (id. at 9). The Magistrate Judge therefore recommends that Plaintiff’s claims against
Defendant Sisson regarding the alleged events of November 2, 2012 go forward, but Plaintiff’s
claims against Defendants Richardson and Fair be dismissed (id.).
In his objections to the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff asserts that he “did in fact file
an [sic] grievance on defendants Fair and Richardson,” but that “that grievance was never
process[ed]” (Objs., Dkt 62 at 1). Plaintiff does not, however, elaborate on his assertion in any way
that would alter the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation as to Defendants Fair and Richardson. The
remainder of the page Plaintiff devotes to discussion of the Magistrate Judge’s decision appears to
pertain only to whether he submitted a grievance concerning the November 2, 2012 incident, a
grievance that named only Defendant Sisson (id. at 1).1 Plaintiff’s argument therefore fails to
demonstrate any factual or legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that Plaintiff’s
claims against Defendants Richardson and Fair be dismissed.
1
Plaintiff devotes the remaining pages of his document to reiterating his requests for a jury
trial (Objs., Dkt 62 at 2-6) and discovery (id. at 7-10), requests that he has also made in other
motions and that are not addressed herein.
2
Accordingly, this Court denies Plaintiff’s objections and approves and adopts the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the Opinion of this Court. Therefore:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (Dkt 62) are DENIED, and the Report and
Recommendation (Dkt 61) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt 28)
is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, in the manner and for the reasons stated in the
Report and Recommendation.
20
Dated: March ___, 2014
/s/ Janet T. Neff
JANET T. NEFF
United States District Judge
3
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?