Ryan #787263 v. Bunting et al

Filing 104

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 101 and GRANTING Defendants' motion to dismiss 57 ; signed by Chief Judge Paul L. Maloney (Chief Judge Paul L. Maloney, cmc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SEAN MICHAEL RYAN, # 787263,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
-v)
)
JOANN BUNTING, et al.,
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

No. 1:14-cv-511
HONORABLE PAUL L. MALONEY

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
This is a civil rights lawsuit filed by a Sean Ryan, a state prisoner. Ryan alleges Eighth Amendment
claims against multiple health care providers. The nurse defendants filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No.
57.) The motion was filed on behalf of defendants Bunting, Sheldon, Kronk, Sarniak, LeBerre, Kemp,
Doolittle, and Oaks. After Ryan filed responses, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending the
claims and prayers for relief be denied. (ECF No. 101 “R&R.”) Ryan filed objections. (ECF No. 103.)
After being served with a report and recommendation issued by a magistrate judge, a party has
fourteen days to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A district court judge reviews de novo the portions of the R&R to which
objections have been filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Only those objections that are
specific are entitled to a de novo review under the statute. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir.
1986) (per curiam).
The magistrate judge makes three recommendations. First, Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief
should be dismissed as moot because Plaintiff was transferred from the institution where defendants are or
were employed. Second, Plaintiff’s claims against defendants in their official capacities should be denied

because the claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Plaintiff does not object to either
recommendation. Plaintiff does not address the authority or the reasoning outlined by the magistrate judge
in the R&R. The first and second recommendations are, therefore, adopted.
Third, the magistrate judge concludes that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for the
claims brought against them in their individual capacities. The magistrate judge concludes that Plaintiff failed
to establish the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. Plaintiff did not establish that the law as
clearly established at a sufficient level of specificity. The magistrate judge prominently noted that Plaintiff
did not name a single one of these defendants anywhere in his brief. Rather, Plaintiff “makes generalized
assertions that defendants delayed and denied his medical appointments, failed to respond to his ongoing
daily requests for medical care and failed to provide effective medical treatment by providing him with the
prescribed medication Naproxyn rather than other medications.” (R&R 6 Page ID 873.) However, the
physician, not the nurses, made medication and other treatment determinations. The magistrate judge
concluded that it is clearly established law that nurses are not required to second guess or overrule the
decisions of the treating physician. (Id. 7 Page ID 874.)
Plaintiff’s objection does not address this conclusion. Instead, Plaintiff simply reiterates his claims,
and commits the same errors noted in the R&R. In his objection, Plaintiff asserts, incorrectly, that the
magistrate judge overlooked the denial of care and delay of care claims. In his objection, Plaintiff again
generally describes the actions of “the nurses.” Plaintiff neglects to address clearly established law identified
by the magistrate judge. Instead, Plaintiff offers legal holdings that describe, in general terms, an Eighth
Amendment claim.
Having reviewed the objections de novo, the Court finds the R&R accurately summarizes the
2

relevant facts and the law. The recommendation that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity is,
therefore adopted.
The R&R (ECF No. 101) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. Defendants’ motion to
dismiss (ECF No. 57) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief against these defendants are
dismissed as moot; the claims against these defendants in their official capacities and their individual
capacities are denied and dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date:

May 15, 2015

/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
Chief United States District Judge

3