Rains #850456 v. Smith et al

Filing 47

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 38 with the clarification that the Court is making no factual findings; Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment 14 , 21 , 32 are granted; Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Hu yge are dismissed with prejudice; Plaintiff's claims against Defendants LeBarre, Sikkema, Moody, and Doolittle are dismissed without prejudice for lack of exhaustion; the Court discerns no good-faith basis for appeal ; signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker (Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc)

Case 1:17-cv-00470-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 47 filed 09/07/18 PageID.440 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES RAHEEM RAINS,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 1:17-CV-470
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
WILLIE SMITH, 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. 38), Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF No. 43), and Defendants’ Responses (ECF Nos.
45, 46). 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 Court has reviewed de novo the claims and evidence presented to the Magistrate Judge; the

Case 1:17-cv-00470-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 47 filed 09/07/18 PageID.441 Page 2 of 3

Report and Recommendation itself; Plaintiff’s Objections; and Defendants’ Responses. The Court
finds the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, which recommends granting the
defense motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 14, 21, 32), factually sound and legally
correct.1
The Magistrate Judge carefully and thoroughly considered the evidentiary record, the
parties’ arguments, and the governing law. Plaintiff’s objections do not address the Report and
Recommendation in a persuasive way. The objections primarily amplify arguments Plaintiff has
already made and the Magistrate Judge has already addressed properly. Plaintiff’s objections as
to Defendant Huyge fails to come to grips with the fundamental point that “[a] patient’s
disagreement with his physicians over the proper medical treatment alleges no more than a medical
malpractice claim, which is a tort actionable in state court, but is not cognizable as a federal
constitutional claim.” Owens v. Hutchinson, 79 F. App’x 159, 161 (6th Cir. 2003). The Magistrate
Judge correctly determined that Plaintiff did not properly exhaust his claims as to the remaining
Defendants. Nothing in Plaintiff’s objections changes the core analysis. Summary judgment in
favor of the moving Defendants is appropriate, for the very reasons the Report and
Recommendation details.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED:
1.

The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 38), with the

clarification that the Court is making no factual finding, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the
opinion of the Court.
2.

Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 14, 21, 32) are

GRANTED.

1

The Report and Recommendation contains the heading “proposed findings of fact,” but the Court is making no
factual finding.

2

Case 1:17-cv-00470-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 47 filed 09/07/18 PageID.442 Page 3 of 3

3.

Plaintiff’s

claims

against

Defendant

Huyge

are

DISMISSED

WITH

PREJUDICE.
4.

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants LeBarre, Sikkema, Moody, and Doolittle are

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of exhaustion.
5.

For the same reasons that the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims, the Court discerns

no good-faith basis for an appeal within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611 (6th Cir. 1997) (overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock,
549 U.S. 199 (2007)).

Dated:

September 7, 2018

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

3