Spearman #320836 v. Williams et al

Filing 84

OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 78 ; Defendants' motion for summary judgment 53 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction 65 is DENIED; Plaintiff's motion for Court to take judicial notice 82 is DENIED as moot; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)

Case 1:17-cv-01070-JTN-SJB ECF No. 84 filed 09/04/20 PageID.714 Page 1 of 3

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 this prisoner civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 involving claims
that Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) employees conspired and retaliated against
him in violation of his First Amendment rights. Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
and Plaintiff filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. The
matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R),
recommending the Court 1) grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to
Plaintiff’s conspiracy claim against Defendant Youngert, 2) dismiss Defendant Youngert from the
case, 3) deny the balance of Defendants’ motion, and 4) deny Plaintiff’s motion. The matter is
presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objection to the Report and Recommendation.
Additionally, Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Court to Take Judicial Notice. 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 an objection has been made. The
Court denies the objection, denies Plaintiff’s motion as moot, and issues this Opinion and Order.

Case 1:17-cv-01070-JTN-SJB ECF No. 84 filed 09/04/20 PageID.715 Page 2 of 3

I.

Objection

Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the Court grant
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to the conspiracy claim against
Defendant Youngert and dismiss Defendant Youngert from the case (Pl. Obj., ECF No. 79 at
PageID.689). Ultimately, Plaintiff asserts that the Magistrate Judge erred in viewing the claim and
Defendant Youngert’s involvement “through the wrong scope …” by assessing “[Defendant
Youngert’s] level of involvement in the technical administrative classification process” rather than
“assess[ing his] level of involvement in the conspiracy …” (id. at PageID.690). Contrary to
Plaintiff’s argument, the Magistrate Judge was not misled, and did not look at the issue with the
incorrect scope. The Magistrate Judge set forth the applicable authority for establishing a
conspiracy claim and properly concluded that absent any personal involvement by Defendant
Youngert in increasing Plaintiff’s security classification, the alleged unconstitutional behavior,
“there is no basis to impose liability on him for the alleged violation” (R&R, ECF No. 78 at
PageID.682; citing Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976)). This objection is denied.
II.

Motion

The Court considered Plaintiff’s objection to the Report and Recommendation on the
merits without any issue of timeliness; therefore, Plaintiff’s motion requesting the Court take
judicial notice of his objection as timely filed (ECF No. 82) is moot.
Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the
Opinion of this Court.
Therefore:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objection (ECF No. 79) is DENIED and the Report
and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 78) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as
the Opinion of the Court.
2

Case 1:17-cv-01070-JTN-SJB ECF No. 84 filed 09/04/20 PageID.716 Page 3 of 3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
53) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART for the reasons stated in the Report and
Recommendation. Specifically, the Court grants summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff’s
conspiracy claim against Defendant Youngert, and Defendant Youngert is DISMISSED from this
case. The Court denies the balance of Defendants’ summary judgment motion.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order
and Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 65) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Court to Take Judicial Notice
(ECF No. 82) is DENIED as moot.

/s/ Janet T. Neff

Dated: September 4, 2020

JANET T. NEFF
United States District Judge

3