McKie v. Van Buren, County of et al

Filing 73

OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 70 ; Defendants' motion for summary judgment 57 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RON MCKIE,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:17-cv-776
v.
HON. JANET T. NEFF
COUNTY OF VAN BUREN, et al.,
Defendants.

____________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging certain claims for damages
from when he was an inmate in the Van Buren County Jail (“the Jail”). Defendants filed a motion
for summary judgment. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and
Recommendation (R&R), recommending that this Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants’
motion. The matter is presently before the Court on Defendants’ objections to the Report and
Recommendation, to which Plaintiff filed a response. 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.
In his Amended Complaint (ECF No. 45), Plaintiff asserts the following five claims:
violation of his Eighth Amendment right to receive adequate medical care (Count I); violation of
his Eighth Amendment right to not be housed in inhumane conditions (Count II); municipal
liability (Count III); violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to receive adequate medical care

(Count IV); and gross negligence (Count V). The Magistrate Judge determined that Defendants
were entitled to summary judgment on all of Plaintiff’s claims except (1) Plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment denial of medical treatment claims against Defendants Griffith, Delarosa, and Boyer
(the “individual Defendants”); and (2) Plaintiff’s municipal liability claim against Defendant Van
Buren County (“the County”). Defendants object to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that
this Court partially deny summary judgment.
Individual Defendants. First, Defendants challenge the Magistrate Judge’s determination
that there is an issue of fact as to whether Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights were violated by
the individual Defendants and that the individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity
(Objs., ECF No. 71 at PageID.596). Defendants argue that the record does not support a finding
either that the jail’s medical staff had specifically instructed the individual Defendants regarding
Plaintiff’s medical condition or that Plaintiff had requested anti-seizure medication from the
individual Defendants (id. at PageID.597). Defendants argue that even if it is somehow found that
Defendants made a “reasonable mistake,” they are still entitled to qualified immunity where
no reasonable officer, in the same position as the subject individual Defendants, “could
possibly conclude that it would have been clear to the individual Defendants that their conduct was
unlawful under the then present circumstances” (id. at PageID.600-601).
In response, Plaintiff points out that Defendants’ objection takes issue with only the
subjective component of his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim (ECF No. 72 at
PageID.609). Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge properly determined that, based on the
following record facts, a reasonable juror could, in fact, conclude that the individual Defendants
knew that he was at risk of serious harm: (1) an Inmate Alert Card indicating that Plaintiff was
taking Lamictal, an anti-seizure medication, was clearly visible to corrections officers on the floor

2

where Plaintiff was housed; (2) corrections officers were given a Medical Form directing that
Plaintiff have bottom bunk status until his release; and (3) Plaintiff unequivocally testified that he
told “every single officer that came through” about his epilepsy and that he would be “likely to
suffer a seizure” if he did not receive his medication (id. at PageID.610-614). Plaintiff argues that
the Magistrate Judge properly held that the individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified
immunity where any reasonable officer in the same position would have taken reasonable measures
for Plaintiff’s safety (id. at PageID.614-615).
The Court agrees with Plaintiff that Defendants’ argument fails to demonstrate any factual
or legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s Eighth Amendment analysis or conclusion. The Sixth
Circuit has held that “[b]ecause government officials do not readily admit the subjective
component of this test, it may be ‘demonstrated in the usual ways, including inference from
circumstantial evidence…and a fact finder may conclude that a prison official knew of a substantial
risk from the very fact that the risk was obvious.” Dominguez v. Corr. Med. Servs., 555 F.3d 543,
550 (6th Cir. 2009). Here, from the record evidence, the Magistrate Judge properly concluded that
a question of fact exists as to whether the individual Defendants knew that Plaintiff was at risk of
serious harm and failed to act reasonably in response thereto (R&R, ECF No. 70 at PageID.589).
Further, Defendants’ argument fails to identify any error in the Magistrate Judge’s qualified
immunity analysis, specifically the Magistrate Judge’s determination that “denial by a jail official
of an inmate’s request for medical care which the jail previously prescribed violates the Eighth
Amendment” (id.). See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-19 (1982) (“If the law was clearly
established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public
official should know the law governing his conduct.”). Defendants’ objection is therefore denied.

3

The County. Second, Defendants challenge the Magistrate Judge’s determination that
there are questions of fact as to the County’s liability (Objs., ECF No. 71 at PageID.596).
Defendants argue that the Magistrate Judge erroneously determined that because the correctional
officers were not trained when to advise medical staff when an inmate failed to appear or refused
medication, above and beyond placing an “R” on the medical log, a reasonable juror could
conclude that the County was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and caused
the constitutional injury (id. at PageID.605). According to Defendants, the Magistrate Judge
“failed to account for the role of the Jail’s medical staff,” who did not rely upon the correctional
officers to report such information and who would realize that an “R” on the medical log meant a
missed dosage, prompting medical attention should it be warranted (id. at PageID.605-606).
Defendants’ argument lacks merit. As Plaintiff points out in response, “the complete
absence of any training whatsoever for the corrections officers (who are the ones responsible for
dispensing medicine to an inmate) with regard to situations where an inmate fails to appear to
receive his medicine ‘created a circumstance in which the violation of an inmate’s constitutional
rights was simply inevitable’” (Pl. Resp., ECF No. 72 at PageID.615, quoting R&R, ECF No. 70
at PageID.594). The Magistrate Judge properly held that the evidence in the record was reasonably
susceptible to such an inference and that judgment as a matter of law in the County’s favor would
be inappropriate. This objection is therefore also properly denied.
Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the
Opinion of this Court. Therefore:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF No. 71) are DENIED and the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 70) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
57) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; specifically, Defendants’ motion is granted
except with respect to: (1) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment denial of medical treatment claims
against Defendants Griffith, Delarosa, and Boyer; and (2) Plaintiff’s municipal liability claim
against Defendant Van Buren County.

/s/ Janet T. Neff
JANET T. NEFF
United States District Judge

Dated: September 27, 2019

5