Malott #467434 v. Hill et al

Filing 104

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 101 re 88 : Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 88 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; signed by Judge Gordon J. Quist (Judge Gordon J. Quist, jmt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL MALOTT,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:15-CV-1092

v.

HON. GORDON J. QUIST

UNKNOWN HILL, et al.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On March 6, 2019, Magistrate Judge Ray Kent issued a Report and Recommendation (R &
R) recommending that the Court grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with regard to
Plaintiff’s claims: (1) that Defendants Guzikowski, Black, and Homrich retaliated against Plaintiff
by tampering with his food on October 2, 2015; (2) that Defendants Kopfman, Aron, Bladzak,
Black, and Guzikowski retaliated against him by placing him in restraints on October 3, 2015; and
(3) against Defendants for monetary damages in their official capacity.

(ECF No. 101 at

PageID.393.) The magistrate judge recommended that the motion be denied in all other respects.
Plaintiff has filed a document titled “Motion Response to Judge’s Report &
Recommendation,” which the Court construes as an objection. (ECF No. 102.) Pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), “a party may serve and file specific written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations” of a magistrate judge. “The objections must be clear
enough to enable the district court to discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious.”
Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995) (citing Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 508–09 (6th Cir. 1991)). A general objection that fails to specify the issues
in contention equates to no objection. Id.

Plaintiff’s objection is, at best, a general objection that equates to no objection. Plaintiff
raises two points. First, he says that he did not receive a copy of Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment. This statement is untrue. On or about July 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed a document (ECF No.
94) titled “Response to Defendants [sic] Summary Judgment.” In that document, Plaintiff addresses
the arguments Defendants raised in their motion. It is thus clear that Plaintiff received a copy of
Defendants’ motion, consistent with Defendants’ representation in their certificate of service.
Second, Plaintiff says that he understood that the parties had reached a settlement. If, in fact, the
parties have settled the case, the Court has no knowledge of it, and nothing in the docket report
reflects a settlement. Thus, the magistrate judge was correct to issue the R & R.
Having reviewed the R & R de novo, the Court finds no reason to reject it.
Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the March 6, 2019, Report and Recommendation (ECF
No. 101) is approved and adopted as the Opinion of the Court, and Plaintiff’s Objection (ECF No.
102) is OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
88) is GRANTED with regard to Plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages against Defendants in
their official capacities and with regard to Plaintiff’s claims that Defendants Guzikowski, Black, and
Homrich retaliated against Plaintiff by tampering with his food on October 2, 2015, and that
Defendants Kopfman, Aron, Bladzak, Black, and Guzikowski retaliated against him by placing him
in restraints on October 3, 2015. The motion is DENIED in all other respects.

Dated: March 28, 2019

/s/ Gordon J. Quist
GORDON J. QUIST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2