Jones #221006 v. Finco et al

Filing 97

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; granting defendants' motions for summary judgment; denying plaintiff Tucker's motions for summary judgment; dismissing § 1983 claims for violations of the First and Eighth Amendment; signed by District Judge Paul L. Maloney ; this document appears in the following associated cases: 1:14-cv-01035-PLM-PJG, 1:14-cv-01057-PLM-PJG, 1:14-cv-01153-PLM-PJG (Judge Paul L. Maloney, acr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CURTIS LEWIS JONES, #221006, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
-vTOM FINCO, et al.,

Defendants.

RUDY TUCKER, #207829,
Plaintiff,
-vTOM FINCO, et al.,

Defendants.

RUDY TUCKER, #207829, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
-vTOM FINCO, et al.,

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:14-cv-1035
Honorable Paul L. Maloney

No. 1:14-cv-1057
Honorable Paul L. Maloney

No. 1:14-cv-1153
Honorable Paul L. Maloney

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDAITON AND DISMISSING
LAWSUITS
This matter comes before the Court on a report and recommendation. These three
§ 1983 lawsuits have been administratively consolidated. The claims in each case arise from
the same set of events. The plaintiffs are nine prisoners. In each of the three cases,
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, raising qualified immunity. In each of
these three cases, Plaintiff Rudy Tucker filed a motion for summary judgment. The

magistrate judge issued a report recommending Defendants’ motions be granted and the
claims dismissed.

Plaintiff Curtis Jones filed the only objection.

For clarity and

administrative purposes, the Court notes the relevant events electronically docketed in each
lawsuit. When citing to the record, the Court will refer to PageID numbers in the lead case,
14-cv-1035.
1:14-cv-1035
ECF No. 62 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
ECF No. 64 Plaintiff Rudy Tucker’s motion for summary judgment
ECF No. 94 Report and Recommendation
ECF No. 96 Plaintiff Curtis Jones’s objection
1:14-cv-1057
ECF No. 58 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
ECF No. 60 Plaintiff Rudy Tucker’s motion for summary judgment
ECF No. 90 Report and Recommendation
ECF No. 92 Plaintiff Curtis Jones’s objection
1:14-cv-1153
ECF No. 61 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
ECF No. 63 Plaintiff Rudy Tucker’s motion for summary judgment
ECF No. 93 Report and Recommendation
ECF No. 95 Plaintiff Curtis Jones’s objection
Plaintiffs, all members of the Islamic faith, complain about the meals served during
Ramadan in 2013. They raise claims under the Eighth Amendment, the First Amendment,
and under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The
RLUIPA claims were previously dismissed and are not at issue.
Relevant to this case and to the pending motions is a fourth lawsuit, which was filed
in 2013 and which, in amended and supplemental complaints, also raised claims about the
meals served during Ramadan in 2013. In the fourth case, 1:13-cv-373, on February 16,
2017, Judge Quist issued an order granting the defendants qualified immunity for the 2013

2

Ramadan meal related claims. In these three cases, the magistrate judge recommends
granting Defendants’ motions for the same reason Judge Quist granted the motion in the
2013 case; the rights at issue in the claims were not clearly established in 2013.
After being served with a report and recommendation (R&R) 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) (holding the district court need not provide de novo review where the objections are
frivolous, conclusive or too general because the burden is on the parties to Apinpoint those
portions of the magistrate=s report that the district court must specifically consider@).
First, the magistrate judge explained to the litigants that consolidation of the cases was
for administrative purposes only and that each plaintiff had to represent himself on his own
claims. (R&R at 8 PageID.697.) The magistrate judge then warned the parties that the failure
to timely file objections may constitute a waiver of any further right to appeal. (Id. at 18
PageID.707.) Only Plaintiff Jones filed an objection. The objection was not, and could not,
be filed on behalf of all of the plaintiffs in each of the three cases. Accordingly, the plaintiffs
other than Jones have no objections to the R&R and, for those Plaintiffs, the R&R is adopted
as the opinion of this Court.

3

Second, Jones does not object to the dismissal of his claims against defendants Finco,
Martin, and Purves. For the claims against those three defendants, the R&R is adopted and
the claims are dismissed.
Third, Jones objects to the dismissal of his claims against defendants Heinemann and
Schmidt. Jones relies on a quotation in this R&R from an R&R issued in the Judge Quist
2013 case.
Moreover, it appears that any shortage of food items occurred because of
errors or mismanagement at the local facility level and not because the
MDOC’s Ramadan diet was inadequate. In any event, there is no indication
that Plaintiffs received substantially less than a daily average of 2,350 calories
in either 2013 or 2014 or that such average fell below the 2,000 calorie floor
cited in Cunningham.
(R&R at 15 PageID.704.) Jones reasons that the mismanagement resulted in him receiving
between 1,700 and 1,900 calories on any given day. Jones believes these facts are sufficient
to overcome qualified immunity.
Jones’s objection is OVERRULED. First, Judge Quist granted summary judgment
on the qualified immunity claim in the 13-cv373 case because neither the Supreme Court
nor the Sixth Circuit have specified the number of calories required for a nutritionallyadequate diet. SeeWelch v. Spaulding, 627 F. App’x 479, 483 (6th Cir. 2015) (holding that
because a nutritionally-adequate diet is a multi-factored inquiry, the court would not define
the established right to a nutritious diet during Ramadan in terms of a specific daily caloric
requirement). Jones’s objection does not overcome the lack of a clearly established right.
Second, as characterized in his objection, Jones’s mismanagement claim is one for
negligence, not for a violation of his constitutional rights. Section 1983 imposes liability for

4

violations of constitutional rights, not for the violations of a duty giving rise to a tort claim.

Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.s. 137, 146 (1979). Finally, Jones does not object to the portion
of the R&R finding that he failed to present any medical evidence to support his claims; he
remained healthy enough to work out in the prison’s weight pit each day during the relevant
time period. (R&R at 11 PageID.700.)
For these reasons, the R&R is ADOPTED as the Opinion of this Court. Defendants’
motions for summary judgment for qualified immunity are GRANTED. Plaintiff Tucker’s
motions for summary judgment are DENIED. The § 1983 claims for violations of the First
Amendment and the Eighth Amendment are DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: July 7, 2017

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

5