Dothard #140378 v. Elsen et al

Filing 38

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 33 ; Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment 11 27 are granted; the Court discerns no good-faith basis for appeal ; signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker (Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

KEVIN PAUL DOTHARD,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 1:14-CV-1152
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
SUE EISEN and VALARIE HAMMOND,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Kent’s Report and Recommendation in this matter (docket
# 33) and Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation (docket # 35). 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 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; and Plaintiff's objections. After its review, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge
Kent’s Report and Recommendation is factually sound and legally correct.

The Magistrate Judge carefully and thoroughly considered the evidentiary record, the parties’
arguments, and the governing law. The Magistrate Judge properly analyzed Mr. Dothard’s claims. Nothing
in Mr. Dothard’s objections persuades the Court otherwise. Mr. Dothard emphasizes his disagreements with
decisions about his medical care, but that is not enough to establish deliberate indifference. See, e.g., Owens
v. Hutchinson, 79 F. App’x 159, 161 (6th Cir. 2003) (“[a] patient’s disagreement with his physicians over
the proper medical treatment alleges no more than a medical malpractice claim, which is a tort actionable
in state court, but is not cognizable as a federal constitutional claim.”). The Court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that there exists no genuine issues as to material facts and that Defendants
are entitled to the relief they seek, for the very reasons the Report and Recommendation delineates.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED:
1.

The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (docket # 33) is approved and
adopted as the opinion of the Court.

2.

The Motions for Summary Judgment filed by defendants Eisen and Hammond (docket
## 11 and 27) are GRANTED.

3.

For the same reasons that the Court dismisses the action, the Court discerns no good-faith
basis for an appeal within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611 (6th Cir. 1997).

This case is DISMISSED.

Dated:

March 1, 2016

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

2