Eubanks #152988 v. Corizon, Inc. et al

Filing 55

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 52 and ORDER granting in part defendant's motion for summary judgment 22 ; signed by District Judge Paul L. Maloney (Judge Paul L. Maloney, cmc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ROBERT LINDSEY EUBANKS, #152988,
Plaintiff,
-vCORIZON, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:16-cv-1461
Honorable Paul L. Maloney

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND
ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Robert Eubanks is a prisoner under the control of the Michigan Department
of Corrections. He filed this lawsuit alleging violations of his constitutional rights based on
the medical treatment he received.

Defendant Corizon filed a motion for summary

judgment. (ECF No. 22.) The magistrate issued a report recommending the motion be
denied as to the assertion that administrative grievances were not exhausted and granted as
to the claims on the merits. (ECF No. 52.) Plaintiff filed objections. (ECF No. 53.)
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) (holding the district court need not provide de novo review where the objections are

frivolous, conclusive or too general because the burden is on the parties to Apinpoint those
portions of the magistrate=s report that the district court must specifically consider@).
The magistrate judge summarizes Plaintiff's medical issues and the dates that
treatment was provided for each. Plaintiff does not dispute those factual conclusions. The
magistrate judge accurately summarized the law for these situations. A plaintiff must show
an injury or detrimental effect that was caused by the delay in treatment.
Plaintiff's objections are overruled. Generally, Plaintiff establishes the temporal gap
between diagnosis and treatment. But, Plaintiff has not presented evidence establishing a
causal connection between whatever maladies he currently suffers currently and the delay in
treatment. Plaintiff has presented no evidence concerning the alleged delay in treatment and
his contractures or his foot problems. For his retinal detachment claim, Plaintiff points to a
letter from Dr. Tom Arendshorst. Assuming, for the sake of argument only, that the Court
could consider Dr. Arendshorst's letter (ECF No. 49-1 PageID.471-72), the outcome would
not change. Dr. Arendshorst states that the delay in treatment cannot be explained based
on the records he has. He also states that, based on the sparse records he has, it is "impossible
to understand . . . what part those delays may have played in Mr. Eubank's poor visual
outcome." (PageID.472.) Dr. Arendshorst further states that the retinal detachment was
likely caused by Plaintiff's diabetic retinopathy and that "[e]ven when care is excellent and
speedy it is entirely possible for an eye having a tractional retinal detachment related to
proliferative diabetic retinopathy to end up with poor vision."

Succinctly put, Dr.

Arendshorst does not know whether the delay in treatment caused Plaintiff's current poor
vision.

2

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 52) is ADOPTED as the
Opinion of this Court. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN
PART. Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on the merits of Plaintiff's claims and
those claims are dismissed. The Court has reviewed the record for the purposes of deciding
whether to issue a Certificate of Appealability. Reasonable jurists would not debate whether
the Court should have resolved the issues in a different manner. Therefore, a Certificate of
Appealability is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: February 14, 2018

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

3