Murphy #183248 v. Joboulian et al

Filing 75

OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 70 ; Motion for Summary Judgment 49 is GRANTED; Judgment to issue; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TIMOTHY DAVID MURPHY,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:15-cv-657
v.
HON. JANET T. NEFF
JOHN JOBOULIAN, et al.,
Defendants.

____________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a prisoner civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 involving Plaintiff’s
Eighth Amendment claim. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The matter was
referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R),
recommending Defendants’ motion be granted and this action terminated. The matter is presently
before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation. 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.
Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge “does not properly analyze Plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment claim, as it is not on par with [1] case law, nor [2] established facts of the record” (Pl.
Obj., ECF No. 73 at PageID.571). In support of his first argument that the Magistrate Judge
improperly applied case law, Plaintiff relies on the decision in Vance v. Prison Health Services,
No. 2:10-cv-217, 2011 WL 4346395, at *6 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 15, 2011) (id. at PageID.572-573).

However, Plaintiff cites Vance for the first time in his Objection, meaning the case was not before
the Magistrate Judge for consideration. In any event, for the reasons more fully stated by
Defendants in their response to Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 74 at PageID.589-591), the case
does not compel the result Plaintiff seeks. While the Vance court stated that the plaintiff’s
claims amounted to more than a disagreement with his medical care, it directed the defendants to
address and bring forth evidence regarding the plaintiff’s claims of disregarded pain reports.
Vance is therefore factually

distinct

from

the

present

case.

As

delineated

in

the

Report and Recommendation, the record in this case contains evidence of numerous dental
visits and attempts to control Plaintiff’s pain. In short, Plaintiff’s objection fails to show any
error in the Magistrate Judge’s legal analysis.
As for Plaintiff’s second argument that the Magistrate Judge did not properly analyze his
Eighth Amendment claim in light of “established facts of the record,” Plaintiff does not specifically
identify which facts in the record he believes the Magistrate Judge improperly analyzed. Plaintiff
emphasizes that he submitted multiple kites indicating he was in severe pain and that over-thecounter medication was not effective (ECF No. 73 at PageID.573). However, Defendants’ expert,
Dr. Komyathy, found that Defendant dentists did not prescribe stronger pain medication for the
legitimate medical reason of avoiding dangerous drug interactions (ECF No. 50-12 at PageID.303).
Also, Defendants Byard, Minnich, and Murphy testified that the antibiotics they prescribed would
alleviate pain (ECF No. 50-6 at PageID.241, ECF No. 50-8 at PageID.261, ECF No. 50-9 at
PageID.270). Last, the unrefuted expert report of Dr. Komyathy demonstrated that the wait
Plaintiff endured for his tooth extraction was comparable to that of patients outside of prison (ECF
No. 50-12 at PageID.304). Plaintiff’s general objection fails to show any error in the Magistrate
Judge’s factual analysis.

2

Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the
Opinion of this Court. A Judgment will be entered 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. 73) are DENIED and the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 70) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 49) is
GRANTED.
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.
/s/ Janet T. Neff
JANET T. NEFF
United States District Judge

Dated: September 15, 2017

3