Carter #410324 v. Ayala et al

Filing 133

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 122 , 94 , 130 , 109 ; signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker (Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker, sdb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOEL MARCEL CARTER,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:13-cv-0807

v.

HON. ROBERT J. JONKER

JAMIE AYALA and ROBERT DAVIS,
Defendants.
/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 130)
and Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 131). Under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, where a party has objected to portions of a Report and Recommendation,
“[t]he district judge . . . has a duty to reject the magistrate judge’s recommendation unless, on de
novo reconsideration, he or she finds it justified.” 12 WRIGHT, MILLER & MARCUS, FEDERAL
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3070.2, at 381 (2d ed. 1997). Specifically, the Rules provide that:

The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall make a de novo
determination upon the record, or after additional evidence, of any
portion of the magistrate judge’s disposition to which specific written
objection has been made in accordance with this rule. The district
judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision,
receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate
judge with instructions.
FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). De novo review in these circumstances requires at least a review of the
evidence before the Magistrate Judge. Hill v. Duriron Co., 656 F.2d 1208, 1215 (6th Cir. 1981).
The Court has reviewed de novo the claims and evidence presented to the Magistrate Judge, the

Report and Recommendation itself, the Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate’s Report and
Recommendation. After its review, the Court approves and adopts Magistrate Judge Kent’s Report
and Recommendation as amplified in this Order.
Plaintiff Carter suffers from multiple sclerosis and psychosis. Plaintiff’s complaint raised
three related claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against two defendants: psychiatrist Dr. Jamie Ayala
(“Dr. Ayala”) and social worker Mr. Robert Davis (“Mr. Davis”). Plaintiff’s claim alleging First
Amendment retaliation has previously been dismissed by this Court because Plaintiff did not engage
in conduct protected by the First Amendment (ECF No. 48). Plaintiff’s remaining claims are for
Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference and Fourteenth Amendment right to refuse medical
treatment.
The Report and Recommendation carefully reviews the record and examines the relevant law,
and recommends that defendants’ motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 94, 109) be granted;
that Plaintiff’s supplemental motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 122) be denied; and that this
action be dismissed. The Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation to be wellreasoned and thorough, and accordingly adopts its conclusion.
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS
Plaintiff raises four objections, all of which lack merit. First, Plaintiff claims the Magistrate
Judge failed to apply the correct standard of review, and in particular failed to draw factual
inferences in his favor as the non-moving party. He is incorrect. The Court finds that the Magistrate
Judge applied the correct standard of review, fairly and liberally construed Plaintiff’s claims, and
correctly found that Plaintiff’s claims do not warrant relief under the applicable law.

2

Second, Plaintiff asserts that the Magistrate Judge “ignore[d] and disregard[ed]” his claims
against Dr. Ayala by refusing to evaluate and accept his proffered evidence (ECF No. 131,
PageID.876-878). The Court, however, finds that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation carefully and thoroughly examines the extensive medical record in this case;
details each occasion Dr. Ayala treated Plaintiff; and adequately addresses each of Plaintiff’s claims
in this regard (ECF No. 130, PageID.863-871). Plaintiff’s objection fails to identify any issue the
Magistrate Judge got wrong. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objection is overruled.
Third, Plaintiff claims that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation fails to
address his “law of the case” argument with regard to Defendant Davis. Specifically, Plaintiff claims
that this Court previously found that “a genuine issue of fact remains with regard to Davis” and that
finding controls disposition of Defendant Davis’s motion for summary judgment in this case also
(ECF No. 131, PageID.880). Plaintiff’s objection is meritless. This Court’s prior Order only found
that Defendant failed to meet his qualified immunity burden at an earlier stage of the case (ECF No.
60, PageID.362). Defendants’ current motions raise the different issue of whether Plaintiff has
identified sufficient facts supporting Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims. Moreover, nothing
in the “law of the case” doctrine, or otherwise, prevents a District Court from revisiting and changing
earlier decisions in the case. Accordingly, this objection is overruled.
Plaintiff’s final objection concerns the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Plaintiff failed to raise
a cognizable claim under the Fourteenth Amendment because he was not forced to undergo medical
treatment against his will. Plaintiff does not object to this finding per se, but instead argues that the
Fourteenth Amendment claim at issue is not whether he was forced to undergo medical treatment,
but whether he was retaliated against for refusing to undergo medical treatment. Plaintiff’s objection
3

misses the point. Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim has already been dismissed by this
Court in its very first Order (ECF No. 48, PageID.301) and is therefore no longer at issue.
Accordingly, nothing in Plaintiff’s objections changes the fundamental analysis.
CONCLUSION
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 130), is adopted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Ayala and Davis’s Motions for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 94, 109) are GRANTED, and Plaintiff Carter’s Supplemental Motion for
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 122) is DENIED .
This case is DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

March 30, 2017

/s/ Robert J. Jonker
ROBERT J. JONKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4