King #223983 v. Czop et al
Filing
43
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 36 ; granting Defendant LeBarre's motion for summary judgment 15 , and granting Defendants Corizon and Czop's motion for summary judgment 24 ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LESTER KING, #223983,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:13-CV-406
v.
HON. ROBERT HOLMES BELL
RICHARD CZOP, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On December 12, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Green issued a
report and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that Defendant LeBarre’s motion for
summary judgment (ECF No. 15) be granted, that all claims against LeBarre be dismissed
without prejudice, that Defendants Corizon and Czop’s motion for summary judgment (ECF
No. 24) be granted, and that judgment be entered in their favor on all claims. (R&R, ECF
No. 36.) After receiving an extension of time for filing objections, (ECF No. 40), Plaintiff
filed objections to the R&R on January 16, 2015. (ECF No. 41.)
This Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the R&R
to which specific objection has been made, and may accept, reject, or modify any or all of
the Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b). “[A] general objection to a magistrate’s report, which fails to specify the issues of
contention, does not satisfy the requirement that an objection be filed. 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).
Plaintiff has raised three objections. First, he objects to the determination that he
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to Defendant Judy LeBarre. Plaintiff
contends that the MDOC procedure on grievances does not require naming specific officials
at any step of the grievance process. Plaintiff is mistaken. The grievance procedure
specifically requires an inmate to name the officials being grieved. Policy Directive
03.02.130(R) (“Dates, times, places, and names of all those involved in the issue being
grieved are to be included.”); see also Sullivan v. Kasajaru, 316 F.App’x 469, 470 (6th Cir.
2009) (affirming dismissal for failure to exhaust for failing to name a defendant in a
grievance). Because Plaintiff failed to name Defendant LeBarre in his grievance, the
recommendation that his claims against Defendant LeBarre be dismissed without prejudice
for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is correct.
Plaintiff’s second objection is to the recommendation that Defendant Czop be granted
summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim. On de novo review, the Court
finds, for the reasons stated in the R&R, that Plaintiff has not presented evidence sufficient
to support the objective or subjective components of his Eight Amendment claim for
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
2
Plaintiff’s third objection is to the recommendation that Defendant Corizon, Inc., be
granted summary judgment. On de novo review, the Court finds, for the reasons stated in the
R&R, that Plaintiff has not presented evidence of a custom or policy sufficient to establish
entitlement to relief against the corporate defendant. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections to the December 12, 2014,
R&R (ECF No. 41) are OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the December 12, 2014, R&R (ECF No. 36) is
APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant LeBarre’s motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED, and all claims against Defendant LeBarre are
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Corizon and Czop’s motion for
summary judgment (ECF No. 24) is GRANTED.
Dated: March 30, 2015
/s/ Robert Holmes Bell
ROBERT HOLMES BELL
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?