Hailey #575198 v. Washington et al

Filing 72

OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 64 ; Defendants' motion for summary judgment 55 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment 58 is DENIED; Plaintiff's appeal 54 is DENIED; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)

Case 1:17-cv-01067-JTN-SJB ECF No. 72 filed 09/02/20 PageID.600 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

JEROME HAILEY,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:17-cv-1067
v.
HON. JANET T. NEFF
HEIDI WASHINGTON, et al.,
Defendants.

____________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER
This is a prisoner civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 involving an alleged
retaliatory-conduct claim against Defendants. Plaintiff and Defendants filed cross-motions for
summary judgment. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and
Recommendation (R&R), recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff’s motion and grant in part
and deny in part Defendants’ motion. The matter is presently before the Court on Defendants’
objections to the Report and Recommendation. Additionally, Plaintiff has filed an appeal from a
January 14, 2020 pretrial order of the Magistrate Judge. The Court denies the objections, denies
the appeal, and issues this Opinion and Order.
I.

Defendants’ Objections

Defendants present three objections to the Magistrate Judge’s

Report and

Recommendation. 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.

Case 1:17-cv-01067-JTN-SJB ECF No. 72 filed 09/02/20 PageID.601 Page 2 of 4

First, Defendants argue that the Magistrate Judge erred in determining that Plaintiff was
engaged in protected conduct (Objs., ECF No. 70 at PageID.585-590). However, as the Magistrate
Judge stated in the Report and Recommendation, “Defendants concede for purposes of their
motion that Plaintiff engaged in protected conduct by filing grievances and complaints and
speaking with various MDOC personnel” (R&R, ECF No. 64 at PageID.564). See Defs.’ Br., ECF
No. 56 at PageID.394 (“[F]or purposes of this summary judgment motion only, Defendants do not
contest Plaintiff engaged in protected conduct by filing grievances, complaints and speaking with
various MDOC personnel.”). Defendants’ current assertion to the contrary does not demonstrate
any factual or legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or conclusion in the Report and
Recommendation. Therefore, the first objection is denied.
Second, Defendants argue that the Magistrate Judge erred in determining that Plaintiff
suffered an adverse action (Objs., ECF No. 70 at PageID.590). According to Defendants, Plaintiff
did not suffer any adverse action from the alleged threat to place Plaintiff in segregation because
“…mere threats, standing alone, do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation” (id. at
PageID.593). Defendants fail to differentiate the alleged facts in this case from those in Hill, where
the Sixth Circuit noted that “…even a threat of a transfer to more restrictive housing can constitute
adverse action” (R&R, ECF No. 64 at PageID.565, quoting Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 472 (6th
Cir. 2010)). Therefore, the second objection is denied because Defendants do not demonstrate any
factual or legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or conclusion.
Third, Defendants argue that the Magistrate Judge erred in finding a causal connection
between the protected conduct and the adverse action (Obj., ECF No. 70 at PageID.594).
Defendants argue that alleged statements made to Plaintiff “…on August 7, or in April do not
provide a causal connection for a statement at the end of August threatening to put Plaintiff in

2

Case 1:17-cv-01067-JTN-SJB ECF No. 72 filed 09/02/20 PageID.602 Page 3 of 4

segregation” (id. at PageID.595). However, as the Magistrate Judge observed, temporal proximity
between protected conduct and an official’s adverse conduct “may be significant enough to
constitute indirect evidence of a causal connection” (R&R, ECF No. 64 at PageID.566, quoting
Muhammad v. Close, 379 F.3d 413, 417-18 (6th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
The Magistrate Judge properly analyzed the factual and legal support for Defendants’ claim, and
Defendants’ objection does not demonstrate any error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or
ultimate conclusion that summary judgment on this claim was precluded. Therefore, the third
objection is denied.

Having denied the objections, the Court will adopt the Report and

Recommendation as the Opinion of the Court.
II.

Plaintiff’s Appeal from the Magistrate Judge’s Order

In her January 14, 2020 Order (ECF No. 52), the Magistrate Judge resolved Plaintiff’s
motion to compel certain discovery from Defendants (ECF No. 50). This Court will reverse an
order of a magistrate judge only where it is shown that the decision is “clearly erroneous or
contrary to law” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a).
In his discovery request, Plaintiff sought: (1) Defendants’ “employee files, including
complaints”; and (2) “[t]he facility’s camera footage on each day allege[d] in plaintiff’s complaint”
(ECF No. 51-3 at PageID.365). The Magistrate Judge determined that “Plaintiff’s failure to limit
the scope of his request or to explain why the information sought is relevant to his claims requires
that the motion be denied as to Defendants’ personnel files” (Order, ECF No. 52 at PageID.374).
As for Plaintiff’s request for video footage, the Magistrate Judge denied that request for being
“…overly broad and vague” (id.).
To the extent that the issue has not been rendered moot by this Court’s adoption of the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ motion for

3

Case 1:17-cv-01067-JTN-SJB ECF No. 72 filed 09/02/20 PageID.603 Page 4 of 4

summary judgement, Plaintiff’s appeal is properly denied for lack of merit. Plaintiff argues that
he is “…being totally discriminated against by being prevented to conduct and complete his
discovery” (ECF No. 54 at PageID.378). Plaintiff’s argument demonstrates only his disagreement
with the Magistrate Judge’s resolutions of his discovery requests, not that the Order was either
clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, this Court denies Plaintiff’s appeal.
Therefore:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF No. 70) are DENIED and the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 64) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
55) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART for the reasons stated in the Report and
Recommendation. Specifically, the Court grants summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim against
Defendant Smith, and Defendant Smith is TERMINATED. The Court denies summary judgment
on Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Crawford but limits the claim to Plaintiff’s allegation that
Defendant Crawford threatened to place Plaintiff in segregation. Plaintiff’s official-capacity
claims are dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgement (ECF No.
58) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s appeal (ECF No. 54) from the Magistrate
Judge’s Order (ECF No. 52) is DENIED.
/s/ Janet T. Neff

Dated: September 2, 2020

JANET T. NEFF
United States District Judge

4