Krusell #460118 v. Wallin et al

Filing 53

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 49 and granting in part and denying in part motion for summary judgment 40 ; signed by District Judge Paul L. Maloney (Judge Paul L. Maloney, cmc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MICHAEL JAMES KRUSELL, # 460118,
Plaintiff,
-vSAM HUNT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:15-cv-1159
Honorable Paul L. Maloney

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND
GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Michael Krusell is a former state prisoner. He filed this civil rights action
based on events that occurred while he was detained in the Emmett County Jail. Defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 40.) The magistrate judge issued a report
recommending the motion be granted in part and denied in part. (ECF No. 49.) Defendants
filed objections. (ECF No. 51.) Plaintiff has not filed any objections.
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).

The Court has reviewed the R&R and objections. Defendants do not assert that the
R&R contains factual errors. For the excessive force claim arising from the take down,
Defendants assert that the magistrate judge did not apply the required deference to
Defendant Hunt's perceptions of the threat posed by Plaintiff. The Court finds no errors in
the recommendations. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, there
remain genuine issues of material fact whether Hunt's perception of a threat was reasonable
so as to justify the take down. For the excessive force claim arising from the use of a taser,
there remain genuine issues of material fact. Even if Defendant Britton yelled "TASER"
prior to its use, Plaintiff has asserted that he was under Defendants' control, could not move,
and was not resisting when the taser was used.
Accordingly, the R&R (ECF No. 49) is ADOPTED as the Opinion of this Court.
Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 40) is GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART. All of the claims against Defendants Allen and Britton are dismissed.
The claims against Defendant Hunt arising from the strip search are dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: February 1, 2018

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

2