Meyer #395742 v. Natole et al

Filing 251

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 232 and 237 ; Defendant Nelson's Motion for Summary Judgment 64 is GRANTED as to Counts 19, 20, and 21; Plaintiff's state law claims against Defendant Nelson set forth in Counts 2 2, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; Defendant Marcules and LaBrie's Motion for Summary Judgment 104 is GRANTED as to the claims of deliberate indifference alleged in Counts 61 and 65; Plaintiff's state law claims ag ainst Defendants Marcules and LaBrie set forth in Counts 62, 63, 64 are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; Defendants Nelson, Marcules, and LaBrie are DISMISSED from this action; signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker (Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

JONATHAN KING MEYER,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 1:14-CV-536
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
JOSEPH NATOLE, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Kent’s Report and Recommendations dated
February 16, 2016 and February 26, 2016 (docket ## 232, 237) and Plaintiff Meyer’s Objections
(docket ## 238, 242). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, where, as here, 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 451
(3d ed. 2014). Specifically, the Rules provide that:
The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate
judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The district
judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition;
receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge
with instructions.
FED R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). 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; both

Reports and Recommendations; and Plaintiff's objections. After its review, the Court finds that
Magistrate Judge Kent’s Report and Recommendations are factually sound and legally correct.
The Magistrate Judge recommends granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants
Nelson, Marcules, and LaBrie on the federal claims against them (docket ## 232, 237). In his
objections (docket ## 238, 243), Plaintiff primarily reiterates and expands upon arguments made in
earlier filings. Nothing in his objections changes the fundamental analysis as to Defendants Nelson,
Marcules, or LaBrie. Plaintiff’s constitutional claims against Defendant Nelson are premised on
decisions to prescribe Trazodone and Celexa. Defendant Nelson, a licensed master’s social worker,
lacks authority to prescribe drugs or practice medicine. The Magistrate Judge properly found that
Plaintiff cannot establish the subjective component of a deliberate indifference claim against
Defendant Nelson. Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claims against Defendants Marcules and
LaBrie likewise fail, for precisely the reasons detailed in the Report and Recommendation (docket
# 237, PageID.3010-3015).
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Reports and Recommendations of the
Magistrate Judge (docket ## 232, 237) are approved and adopted as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Nelson’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(docket # 64) is GRANTED as to Counts 19, 20, and 21.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendant Nelson
set forth in Counts 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under
28 U.S.C. § 1367).

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Marcules and LaBrie’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (docket # 104) is GRANTED as to the claims of deliberate indifference alleged in Counts
61 and 65.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendants Marcules
and LaBrie set forth in Counts 62, 63, 64 are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 28
U.S.C. § 1367.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Nelson, Marcules, and LaBrie are
DISMISSED from this action.

Dated:

March 23, 2016

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

3