Nolen #273394 v. Luoma et al

Filing 255

OPINION ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 246 ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN N O R T H E R N DIVISION A R L A N D U S M. NOLEN, P l a in tif f , v. TIMOTHY LUOMA et al., D e f e n d a n ts . _________________________________/ O P I N IO N ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION T h is is a prisoner civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants O b id e n , Ansell, Luoma, Johnson and Kutchie filed a motion for summary judgment (docket # 2 1 8 ). The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and F I L E NO. 2:06-cv-125 H O N . ROBERT HOLMES BELL R e c o m m e n d a tio n (R&R) (docket #246), recommending that this Court grant Defendants' m o tio n and enter judgment for Defendants Obiden, Ansell, Luoma, Johnson and Kutchie. T h e matter presently is before the Court on Plaintiff's objections to the R&R (docket #247). F o r the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's objections are rejected and the R&R is adopted in its e n tirety as the opinion of this court. I. T h i s Court reviews de novo those portions of an R&R to which objections are made. 2 8 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). See also U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Thomas S o lv e n t Co., 955 F.2d 1085, 1088 (6th Cir. 1992) (noting that a district court conducts de n o v o review of magistrate judge's rulings on dispositive motions); Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 3 7 3 , 380 (6th Cir. 1995) ("[A] general objection to a magistrate's report, which fails to s p e c if y the issues of contention, does not satisfy the requirement that an objection be filed. T h e objections must be clear enough to enable the district court to discern those issues that a re dispositive and contentious."). The Court may accept, reject or modify any or all of the M a g is tra te Judge's findings or recommendations. Id. On a motion for summary judgment, a court must consider all pleadings, depositions, a f f id a v its and admissions and draw all justifiable inferences in favor of the party opposing th e motion. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1 9 8 6 ). The court, however, "'need not accept as true legal conclusions or unwarranted f a c tu a l inferences.'" Michigan Paytel Joint Venture v. City of Detroit, 287 F.3d 527, 533 (6th C ir. 2002) (quoting Morgan v. Church's Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10, 12 (6th Cir. 1987)). T h e party moving for summary judgment has the burden of pointing the court to the absence o f evidence in support of some essential element of the opponent's case. Celotex Corp. v. C a tre tt, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); Street v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1479 (6th C ir. 1989). Once the moving party has made such a showing, the burden is on the n o n m o v in g party to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue for trial. Id. Summary ju d g m e n t is appropriate when the record reveals that there are no genuine issues as to any m a te ria l fact in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R . CIV. P. 56(c); Kocak v. Community Health Partners of Ohio, Inc., 400 F.3d 466, 468 (6th C ir. 2005). -2- In order to prove that a triable issue exists, the nonmoving party must do more than re ly upon allegations, but must come forward with specific facts in support of his or her c la im . Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322; Mulhall v. Ashcroft, 287 F.3d 543, 550 (6th Cir. 2002). A p a rty opposing a motion for summary judgment "may not merely recite the incantation, 'c re d ib ility,' and have a trial in the hope that a jury may believe factually uncontested proof." F o g e ry v. MGM Holdings Corp., Inc., 379 F.3d 348, 353 (6th Cir. 2004). After reviewing t h e whole record, the court must determine "whether the evidence presents a sufficient d i sa g r e e m e n t to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must p r e v a i l as a matter of law." Booker v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., Inc., 879 F.2d 1 3 0 4 , 1310 (6th Cir. 1989) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1 9 8 6 )). "'[D]iscredited testimony is not [normally] considered a sufficient basis'" for d e f e a tin g the motion. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256-57 (quoting Bose Corp. v. Consumers U n io n of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485, 512 (1984)). In addition, where the factual co n text makes a party's claim implausible, that party must come forward with more p e rs u a s iv e evidence demonstrating a genuine issue for trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-24; M a tsu sh ita , 475 U.S. at 586-87; Street, 886 F.2d at 1480. "A mere scintilla of evidence is in s u f f ic ie n t; 'there must be evidence on which a jury could reasonably find for the [nonm o v a n t ].'" Daniels v. Woodside, 396 F.3d 730, 734 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting Anderson, 477 U .S . at 252). -3- II. In his complaint, Plaintiff named 46 Defendants and alleged that they collectively had u n la w f u lly confiscated his property, interfered with his access to the courts and retaliated a g a in s t him in numerous ways for filing grievances. The Magistrate Judge concluded that D ef en d an ts Obiden, Ansell, Luoma, Johnson and Kutchie were entitled to summary ju d g m e n t. The Magistrate Judge first found that Plaintiff had alleged only that Defendants A n s e ll and Luoma were liable in the action on the basis of their supervisory authority, a lleg a tio n s that are insufficient to state a claim under § 1983. In addition, the Magistrate J u d g e concluded that Plaintiff's claim that he was denied access to the courts by these D e f en d a n ts failed to identify how the alleged deprivations in access to legal materials had h in d e re d his efforts to pursue a nonfrivolous legal claim. The Magistrate Judge further found that Plaintiff had failed to support a claim of retaliation against these Defendants. Moreover, th e Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff had failed to support any allegations of an E ig h th Amendment violation by these Defendants. For substantially the same reasons, the M a g is tra te Judge concluded that the Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. In his objections, Plaintiff asserts generally that the R&R fails to "reflect the facts in th is case that [Plaintiff] submitted in my complaint and subsequent pleadings." (Pl's O b jec tio n s to R&R, docket #247 at 1.) Plaintiff's objection is meritless. In response to D e f en d a n ts ' motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff filed no affidavits or other evidence. In s te a d , he simply referred the court to the facts "set out in my complaint and subsequent -4- p le a d in g s along with proofs." (Pl's Resp. to Mot. for Sum. J., docket #229 at 1.) Plaintiff's c o m p la in t was not verified and he has at no time filed an affidavit supporting the allegations in his complaint. As previously discussed, in response to a motion for summary judgment, P la in tif f cannot simply rely on his allegations. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. In addition, in his re sp o n s e to a motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the e x is te n c e of a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 323. Plaintiff wholly fails even to identify what a tta c h m e n t s to his various pleadings actually support his claims against these Defendants. T h e Court is not required to sift through a docket record containing more than 250 entries to d e te rm in e if some evidence has been filed at some point that would support any of the a lle g a ti o n s relevant to this motion. Notwithstanding that fact, the Court has conducted a re v ie w of the supporting materials filed by Plaintiff during the course of this action. Nothing in the record undermines the Magistrate Judge's determinations in the R&R. P la in tiff also has attached to his objections two affidavits from other prisoners p u r p o r tin g to support his claims. The Court declines to consider the belatedly filed materials. P lain tiff had ample time to file his response to the motion for summary judgment. The Court w ill not at this late date expand the record to consider the new documents.1 I I I. H av in g considered each of Plaintiff's objections and finding no error, the Court hereby d e n ies Plaintiff's objections and adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Without going into detail, the Court notes that, in any event, the affidavits do not appear to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact on any claim against these Defendants. -51 J u d g e as the opinion of the Court. Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendant's motion for su m m a ry judgment and enter judgment for Defendant. A Judgment consistent with this O p in io n shall be entered. Dated: June 25, 2009 /s/ Robert Holmes Bell ROBERT HOLMES BELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -6-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?