Douglas #132125 v. Palmer et al

Filing 102

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 73 , 89 ; signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker (Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker, sdb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LEON DOUGLAS,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 1:15-CV-41
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
KEARA MUZZIN, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Green’s Report and Recommendation in this
matter (ECF No. 89), as well as the Objection submitted by the Defendants (ECF No. 90) and the
Objection submitted by Plaintiff (ECF No. 99). 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 Magistrate Judge recommends granting the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
(ECF No. 73) in part to dismiss Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Muzzin
and Martin. The Magistrate Judge further recommends that the Court deny the motion in all other
respects. (ECF No. 89). The Court has reviewed de novo the claims and evidence presented to the
Magistrate Judge; the Report and Recommendation itself; and the two Objections. After its review,
the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Green’s Report and Recommendation is factually sound and
legally correct and accordingly adopts its conclusion.
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION (ECF No. 99)
Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that Defendants Muzzin and
Martin are entitled to qualified immunity on the Eighth Amendment claims raised against them in
their individual capacities. According to Plaintiff, he has shown that Defendants were deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs.
The Report and Recommendation carefully and accurately details the factual record. The
basic facts of Defendants Muzzin and Martin are really beyond genuine dispute. How to
characterize those facts is disputed, but that does not preclude summary judgment here. On this
record, no reasonable fact-finder could conclude Defendants Muzzin and Martin were deliberately
indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical needs, for the very reasons the Report and Recommendation
describes. Nothing in Plaintiff’s Objection changes that fundamental analysis.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Objection is overruled.
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION (ECF No. 90)
Defendants do not object to the Magistrate Judge’s decision to dismiss Plaintiff’s Section
1983 claims against Defendants Muzzin and Martin based on qualified immunity. However,
Defendants do object to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the ADA and RA claims
2

should not be dismissed. Defendants assert that because Plaintiff has not shown Defendants
Muzzin and Martin acted with deliberate indifference toward Plaintiff, Plaintiff may not recover
compensatory damages under the ADA or RA. Defendants may be right, but as the Court reads the
record on de novo review, this is the first time Defendants have raised the argument. There is only
a cursory reference in Defendant’s summary judgment brief to the ADA and RA claims that is
entirely undeveloped and accompanied by no legal authority. (ECF No. 84, PageID.364).
Generally, “issues raised for first time in objections to magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation are deemed waived.” United States v. Waters, 158 F.3d 933, 936 (6th Cir. 1998)
(citing Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d 1421, 1426-27 (10th Cir. 1996)).
Accordingly, the Defendants’ Objection is overruled. If Defendants believe they have a
meritorious argument on the ADA and RA claims, they may raise it at trial under FED. R. CIV. P.
50.
CONCLUSION
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 89) is approved and adopted as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
73) is GRANTED to the extent it seeks the dismissal of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims
against Defendants Muzzin and Martin and DENIED in all other respects.

Date:

March 25, 2019

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

3