Spearman #320836 v. Williams et al

Filing 127

OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 118 ; Defendants' motion for summary judgment 106 is GRANTED; Judgment to issue; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RUFUS L. SPEARMAN,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:17-cv-1070
v.
HON. JANET T. NEFF
CHAD H. WILLIAMS, et al.,
Defendants.

____________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff filed a prisoner civil rights complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based on
events that occurred at Carson City Correctional Facility in 2014 (Amended Complaint, ECF No.
8). Before the Court now are Plaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation
on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 123). The Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation recommended that the Court grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 106) and dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice (ECF No. 118 at
PageID.1010). For the reasons that follow, the Objections are overruled and denied, and the Court
approves and adopts 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 performs
de novo review to those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Plaintiff raises
specific objection. “De novo review in these circumstances requires at least a review of the
evidence before the Magistrate Judge.” See, e.g., Lees v. Whitmer, No. 1:21-CV-820, 2021 WL
4748594, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 12, 2021) (citing Hill v. Duriron Co., 656 F.2d 1208, 1215 (6th
Cir. 1981)).

Plaintiff’s Objections state that questions of fact remain as to the change in Plaintiff’s
security classification, resulting in Plaintiff’s transfer to a higher security facility in 2014 (ECF
No. 123 at PageID.1024). Plaintiff points to the following facts as worthy of further fact finding:
whether the transfer decision was made based upon Plaintiff’s classification
points;
whether Defendant Williams knew Plaintiff had enough management points for
a Class V security classification before he arrived at Carson City Correctional
Facility; and
whether Defendants can offer any reason why Plaintiff was not transferred to a
Level V facility prior to Plaintiff lawfully engaging in the grievance process.
(id. at PageID.1024-1025).
The question for the Court is whether the factual issues Plaintiff points to preclude
summary judgment and create triable issues of material fact. “Facts are material when they ‘affect
the outcome of the suit under the governing law.’ . . . ‘[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual
dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary
judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.’” Hardy v. Adams,
No. 16-2055, 2018 WL 3559190, at *2 (6th Cir. Apr. 13, 2018) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986)).
The Court finds that the Objections fail to identify genuine issues of material fact to
preclude the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and for Plaintiff to survive the motion for
summary judgment. See Street v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1477 (6th Cir. 1989)
(quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 257) (“The plaintiff must present affirmative evidence in order to
defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment.”); Young v. Campbell Cty., Kentucky,
846 F. App’x 314, 320 (6th Cir. 2021) (internal citations and quotations omitted) (“To defeat a
summary-judgment motion, the non-movant must put forward evidence on which the jury could

2

reasonably find for the non-movant”). Plaintiff raises apparent factual questions, but these
questions do not address the summary judgment issue as correctly framed by the Magistrate Judge.
The Court does not need to know all the surrounding facts related to security classifications
and to Plaintiff’s security classification, rather Plaintiff must produce enough facts to create a
triable issue on any element of Plaintiff’s retaliation claim, here, principally, the element of
causality. The Court does not see how the factual questions Plaintiff references pertain to
Plaintiff’s burden on this motion. Clabo v. Johnson & Johnson Health Care Sys., Inc., 982 F.3d
989, 992 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (“[S]ummary
judgment must be entered where the nonmovant ‘fails to make a showing sufficient to establish
the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the
burden of proof at trial.’”).
None of the factual issues referenced undermine the Magistrate Judge’s fundamental
conclusion that the Plaintiff has alleged only at most temporal proximity between the filing of a
grievance or grievances and the transferring of Plaintiff to a Level V security facility (ECF No.
118 at PageID.1009). Plaintiff states that the Report and Recommendation failed to address the
scope of Plaintiff’s multiple grievances (ECF No. 123 at PageID.1027). This is inaccurate,
however. The Magistrate Judge addressed Plaintiff’s best argument and found that Plaintiff’s
multiple grievances in fact hurt Plaintiff’s circumstantial evidence of causality via the temporal
proximity argument (ECF No. 118 at PageID.1009).
The other objections fail to engage with the Magistrate Judge’s well-reasoned Report and
Recommendation, which viewed the factual evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s objections do nothing to change the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that there is no
affirmative evidence in the record that Plaintiff’s grievance was a cause of Plaintiff’s transfer:

3

there is no evidence that “the Youngert grievance influenced Fenby’s transfer decision in any
manner,” and “there is no evidence that Defendant Fenby was even aware of the Osbourne
grievance” (id. at PageID.1005-1006).

Plaintiff does not address or rebut this determinative

conclusion.
Plaintiff registers five objections but none of them rebut the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or
show a causal connection between Plaintiff’s grievance and the alleged adverse action of
transferring Plaintiff to a higher security facility. Plaintiff resorts to misdirection in stating that
“[n]one of the Defendants can offer any reason why Plaintiff was not transferred to a Level V
facility prior to Plaintiff lawfully engaging in the grievance process” after Plaintiff had
accumulated sufficient points for the higher management level (ECF No. 123 at PageID.1205).
This suggestive reach, which, if anything, hinders Plaintiff’s position, is not alone sufficient and
in conjunction with other facts for a reasonable juror to rule for Plaintiff, the non-movant.
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50. As should be clear, the use of discretion in affording Plaintiff
second chances on Plaintiff’s security classification on one occasion but not another, is not
sufficient or affirmative evidence that Defendants’ re-classification and transfer was retaliatory.
See id. at 248.
The evidence shows that Defendant was transferred to a higher security facility, after he
committed additional acts of misconduct when he had already accumulated sufficient management
level points to be transferred to a higher security facility. The Court, therefore, finds it implausible
that Plaintiff’s use of the grievance process was the cause of Plaintiff’s transfer. “Circumstantial
evidence may be sufficient to carry this burden, but in considering a summary-judgment motion,
courts ‘may . . . inquire into the plausibility of circumstantial evidence.’” Bard v. Brown Cnty,
970 F.3d 738, 748 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting Adams v. Metiva, 31 F.3d 375, 382 (6th Cir. 1994)).

4

Plaintiff does not rebut the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the transfer process had been initiated
prior to Plaintiff’s grievances, precluding a causal connection between Plaintiff’s protected activity
and the transfer (ECF No. 118 at PageID.1005). Plaintiff brings forward no evidence that within
the context of Plaintiff’s security classification profile that the transfer was based on factors other
than Plaintiff’s misconduct to create a triable issue of summary judgment on the causality element.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation thoroughly considered the evidentiary record
and the parties’ arguments. The Court finds that the Report and Recommendation recommending
the grant of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 118) is factually sound and
legally correct.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate’s Report
and Recommendation on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 123)
are OVERRULED and DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court APPROVES and ADOPTS the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 118) as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
106) is GRANTED.
Because this Opinion and Order resolve all pending claims in this matter, a corresponding
Judgment will issue. See FED. R. CIV. P. 58.

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

Dated: March 24, 2022

5