Weatherspoon #471817 v. Choi et al
OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 219 ; denying objections 223 ; granting motions for summary judgment 162 , 164 ; denying motion for summary judgment 206 ; certifying that an appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith; Judgment to issue; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, rmw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 1:14-cv-707
HON. JANET T. NEFF
JAY CHOI, et al.,
OPINION AND ORDER
In July 2014, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff filed this prisoner civil rights action
against numerous identified and unidentified individuals. The Defendants remaining in this case
filed motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 162 & 164), and Plaintiff also moved for summary
judgment in his favor (ECF No. 206). The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
(R&R), recommending that Defendants’ motions be granted, Plaintiff’s motion be denied, and this
action terminated. The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the Report
and Recommendation (ECF No. 223). Defendants Choi and Santiago filed a response (ECF No.
229), with which Defendants Busman, Caler, Castor, Desjarden, Enz, Heard, Johnson, Johnston,
Lorentz, Miller, Oetman, Perez and Wood concurred (ECF No. 230). 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 sole remaining claims in this case are Plaintiff’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment
claims arising from “the mental health panel proceedings that resulted in a finding of mental illness
and the resulting forced medication” (Op., ECF No. 13 at PageID.224). The Magistrate Judge
concluded that the evidence reveals that Defendants acted in accordance with Plaintiff’s due
process rights (R&R, ECF No. 219 at PageID.1719). As to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim,
the Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff presented “no evidence even suggesting that the
care he received, while unwanted, was grossly incompetent, inadequate, excessive, or intolerable”
Plaintiff’s ten objections 1 contain essentially two arguments in opposition to the Magistrate
Judge’s recommendations on his claims. First, Plaintiff argues that his due process rights were
“actually violated” because Defendants “posed” as mental health providers and cannot prove they
are licensed and properly qualified to comprise a mental health panel, as required by state law
(ECF No. 223 at PageID.1729-1730; ECF No. 223-1 at PageID.1732; ECF No. 223-2 at
PageID.1734-1735; ECF No. 223-4 at PageID.1742; ECF No. 223-5 at PageID.1744-1745).
Second, Plaintiff argues that he was not lawfully part of the mental health program because there
is no signed consent to treatment and he is “not mentally ill” and did “not need and want mental
health treatment and medication but was actually framed” (ECF No. 223 at PageID.1730; ECF No.
223-1 at PageID.1731-1733; ECF No. 223-2 at PageID.1734, 1736; ECF No. 223-3 at
PageID.1737-1739; ECF No. 223-4 at PageID.1740-1741; ECF No. 223-5 at PageID.1743-1745;
ECF No. 223-6 at PageID.1746-1747).
Plaintiff’s objections are contained within the main document (ECF No. 223) as well as its six
attachments (ECF No. 223-1 through ECF No. 223-6).
In response, Defendants point to evidence in the record and attached to Plaintiff’s
complaint that both Choi and Santiago are licensed psychiatrists (ECF No. 229 at PageID.1771).
Defendants also point out that the evidence submitted by Plaintiff and attached to his Complaint
demonstrates the established procedures were followed in this case (id. at PageID.1772).
Defendants otherwise generally assert that Plaintiff’s conspiracy allegations are unfounded and
contrary to his medical records (id. at PageID.1773-1776).
Plaintiff’s objections are properly denied. The Magistrate Judge carefully and thoroughly
considered the record, the parties’ arguments, and the law governing Plaintiff’s Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendment claims. Further, the Magistrate Judge properly analyzed the factual and
legal support for Plaintiff’s claim. The assertions in Plaintiff’s objections do not persuade the
Court otherwise. Rather, Plaintiff’s objections merely reiterate the positions he adopted in his
motion papers, without demonstrating any factual or legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis
that would warrant rejecting the Magistrate Judge’s ultimate conclusion that there is no genuine
issue of material fact on the critical elements of Plaintiff’s claims. For the reasons stated in the
Report and Recommendation, the Court agrees that Defendants are entitled to the relief they seek.
Accordingly, the Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as
the Opinion of this Court and enter a Judgment consistent with this Opinion and Order. See FED.
R. CIV. P. 58. Because this action was filed in forma pauperis, this Court certifies, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. See McGore
v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock,
549 U.S. 199, 206, 211-12 (2007). Therefore:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF No. 223) are DENIED and the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 219) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Choi and Santiago’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 162) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
164) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
206) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)
that an appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith.
Dated: September 8, 2017
/s/ Janet T. Neff
JANET T. NEFF
United States District Judge
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?