Williams #679516 v. Ketchim et al

Filing 40

OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 34 ; granting motion for summary judgment 27 ; dismissing as moot motion for summary judgment 35 ; signed by District Judge Jane M. Beckering (lep)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DEVON WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:23-cv-124
v.
HON. JANE M. BECKERING
UNKNOWN KETCHIM, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER
On February 1, 2023, Plaintiff initiated this prisoner civil rights action against three
Defendants, bringing claims for violation of his constitutional rights by Michigan Department of
Corrections employees (ECF No. 1). On March 7, 2023, the Court issued an Opinion (ECF No.
10) and Order (ECF No. 11) dismissing one Defendant from this action. The parties engaged in
mediation, but the case did not settle (ECF No. 21). On July 22, 2024, the remaining Defendants
moved for summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s alleged failure to exhaust his administrative
remedies (ECF No. 27). This matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report
and Recommendation (R&R) (ECF No. 34). The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s
objection (ECF No. 38) to the Report and Recommendation.1 An objection to a magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation must “specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings,
recommendations, or report to which objections are made and the basis for such objections.” W.D.
Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3), the

1

Plaintiff also filed, the same day as the Magistrate Judge issued the Report & Recommendation,
a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 35).

Court has performed de novo consideration of those portions of the Report and Recommendation
to which objections have been made. The Court issues this Opinion and Order, denies the
Objection, and enters a Judgment closing this case.
In recommending that this Court grant Defendants’ motion, the Magistrate Judge
determined that there was no genuine issue of fact that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies in this case (R&R, ECF No. 34 at PageID.141). First, the Magistrate Judge described
the MDOC grievance procedure (id. at PageID.139–40). The Magistrate Judge next concluded
that Defendants presented evidence that Plaintiff did not complete the applicable grievance process
(id. at PageID.140). Next, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff did not put forth any facts
in support of his conclusory allegations that he exhausted his administrative remedies, and thus
that Plaintiff had not created a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of exhaustion (id. at
PageID.141). Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court grant Defendants’
motion as to Plaintiff’s claims and close this case (id. at PageID.142). The Magistrate Judge
instructed that objections to the R&R must be filed with the Clerk of Court within the applicable
time frame (id. at PageID.142).
Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Motion for Reconsideration” (ECF No. 38). Because
the Report and Recommendation is not a ruling by the Court, a motion for reconsideration is not
the appropriate vehicle for Plaintiff’s argument. However, Plaintiff writes in his document that,
“[i]n response to the Court order I OBJECT under Fed. R. Civ. pro. 46” (id. at PageID.158).
Accordingly, the Court understands Plaintiff’s document to be his objection to the Report and
Recommendation and considers his argument as such.

2

Plaintiff’s argument re-states the merits of his lawsuit and does not address the issue of
exhaustion. Nor does it identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Plaintiff
objects. Plaintiff’s motion is properly denied on this basis. See W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b).
The Court does note that Plaintiff has attached a document entitled “affidavit” (ECF No.
38-1 at PageID.163). In that document, which Plaintiff signed, Plaintiff attests “I followed PLRA
to my best ability I was placed in segregation for 20 something day’s no one came to see me about
my grievance I filed and I was road out to another prison” (id.). Plaintiff also attached a note,
dated May 30, 2020, from Plaintiff to an unknown recipient (ECF No. 28-1 at PageID.164). In
this note the Plaintiff inquires about his Step II grievance, stating he “didn’t receive it back” and
asking for it so that he can take further action (id.). An apparent response scrawled beneath the
note instructs Plaintiff that, if he requires documentation of grievances “filed at another facility,”
he “need[s] to contact that facility” (id.).
Plaintiff’s newly submitted documents do not demonstrate any error in the Magistrate
Judge’s reasoning or ultimate conclusion. In fact, Plaintiff seems to admit that, though he tried his
best under his circumstances, he did not complete the three-step grievance process (ECF No. 38-1
at PageID.163) (“I followed PLRA to my best ability”). Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff is
attempting to raise a new issue—that, due to his being placed in segregation and/or being
transferred to a new facility, no administrative remedies were available to him—that issue has not
been timely raised. Although district courts must engage anew with issues raised after a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation, the Sixth Circuit has generally articulated that “issues raised
for [the] first time in objections to [a] magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are deemed
waived.” Morgan v. Trierweiler, 67 F.4th 362, 367 (6th Cir. 2023) (quoting Murr v. United States,
200 F.3d 895, 902 n.1 (6th Cir. 2000)). Plaintiff’s objection is therefore properly denied.

3

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. 38) is DENIED and the Report
and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 34) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as
the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No.
27) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No.
35) is DIMISSED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)
that an appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith.
Because this Opinion and Order resolves all pending claims, the Court will also enter a
Judgment to close this case. See FED. R. CIV. P. 58.

/s/ Jane M. Beckering
JANE M. BECKERING
United States District Judge

Dated: November 26, 2024

4