Brown #884273 v. Greenfield et al

Filing 117

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 114 , Denying 102 and Granting in Part 107 ; signed by District Judge Paul L. Maloney (Judge Paul L. Maloney, cmc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ADE BROWN, #884273,
Plaintiff,
-vUNKNOWN GREENFIELD, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:18-cv-369
Honorable Paul L. Maloney

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Ade Brown, a prisoner under the control of the Michigan Department of
Corrections, alleges Defendants violated his civil rights. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
(ECF No. 102) and a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 107). The magistrate judge
issued a report and recommendation. (ECF No. 114.) Defendants filed objections. (ECF
No. 115.) Plaintiff filed a response to the objections. (ECF No. 116.)
A. Standard of Review
After being served with a report and recommendation (R&R) issued by a magistrate
judge, a party has fourteen days to file written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A district court judge
reviews de novo the portions of the R&R to which objections have been filed. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Only those objections that are specific are entitled to a
de novo review under the statute. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (per
curiam).

A. Motion to Dismiss
Defendants request the Court dismiss the claims against Defendant Thurlby because
he passed away. The magistrate judge recommends denying the motion. Defendants do not
object to this recommendation.
B. Motion for Summary Judgment
The magistrate judge recommends the Court grant the motion for summary judgment
in part and dismiss all of the claims except for the Eighth Amendment conditions of
confinement claim arising after Plaintiff was returned to his cell. Defendants assert three
objections.
1. Extrinsic Evidence
Defendants argue the magistrate judge overlooked evidence other than the affidavits.
Defendants contend this other evidence demonstrates a lack of any genuine issue of material
fact. Defendants’ objection is overruled. After reading Defendants’ objection, the Court is
left wondering exactly how the documents demonstrate a lack of genuine issue of material
fact relevant to the remaining claim. Defendants’ objection does not specifically connect any
of the documents to one of the proposed findings of fact in the report and recommendation.
Defendants identify these as “numerous misconduct tickets,” “housing unit logbooks,” and
“medical records.” (ECF No. 115 Obj. PageID.1029.) These documents were prepared by
Defendants and contain the same statements made by Defendants in their affidavits. Plaintiff
submitted evidence disputing those statements. That the documents were created prior to
the lawsuit may make the statements contained within them more credible. The documents,

2

however, are not the equivalent of the video recording which prompted the holding in Scott

v. Harris.
2. Conflicting Statements by Plaintiff
Defendants insist that Plaintiff’s inconsistent statements require dismissal of his
claims. Defendants’ objection is overruled. Again, after reading Defendants’ objection, the
Court is left wondering which inconsistent statements demonstrate a lack of genuine issue of
material fact relevant to the remaining claim.

In their motion, Defendants identify

inconsistencies concerning the presence of a nurse after Plaintiff was returned to his cell.
(ECF No. 108 Def. Br. PageID.770.) Whether a nurse visited or did not visit Plaintiff after
he was returned to his cell does not definitively resolve the remaining Eighth Amendment
claim. Defendants also point to discrepancies in Plaintiff’s statements concerning the precise
nature of the restraints (fetal or something else). (Id. PageID.772.) Whether the restraints
kept Plaintiff in a fetal pose or in some other uncomfortable position does not definitively
resolve the remaining claim. The other allegedly inconsistent statements are similarly less
than dispositive: (1) duration of the restraints, (2) extent and duration of the injury to his
wrists, and (3) when he saw a nurse following the incident.
3. Personal Involvement by Each Defendant
Defendants contend the magistrate judge erred because Plaintiff did not set forth
specific facts establishing the personal involvement for each defendant.

Defendants’

objection is overruled. The magistrate judge summarized the facts on which the remaining
claim arises for each defendant. (R&R PageID.1021-22.)

3

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 114)
as its Opinion. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 102) is DENIED. Defendants’
motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 107) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: August 7, 2020

/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge

4