Draughn #182621 v. Caruso et al

Filing 100

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 54 , 94 , 72 ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, sdb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN N O R T H E R N DIVISION

R O N A L D MARK DRAUGHN, a/k/a K H A L I L MALIK SHABAZZ, P l a in tif f , F ile No. 2:08-CV-32 v. HON. ROBERT HOLMES BELL P A T R IC IA CARUSO, et al., D e f e n d a n ts . / O R D E R APPROVING AND ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION O n February 2, 2010, United States Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley issued a rep o rt and recommendation ("R&R") recommending that Defendants' motions for summary ju d g m e n t be granted and that this case be dismissed in its entirety. (Dkt. No. 94, R&R; Dkt. N o s. 54, 72, Mots. for Summ. J.) Plaintiff Ronald Mark Draughn, a/k/a Khalil Malik S h a b a z z, filed objections to the report and recommendation on February 11, 2010. (Dkt. No. 9 5 .) This Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the R&R to which specific objection has been made, and may accept, reject, or modify any or all of th e Magistrate Judge's findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P . 72(b). Plaintiff objects to the application of the doctrine of claim preclusion because he

c o n te n d s that the claims, the parties, and the time periods covered by the two actions are not id e n tic a l. Plaintiff's objections lack merit. Plaintiff's current complaint alleges that for the p a st thirteen years he has been unfairly continued at Level V on a CFA Hold due to his re lig io n or race. (Compl. ¶¶ 16-36.) Plaintiff's previous action similarly included allegations th a t MDOC officials denied him a lower level transfer multiple times solely because of his re lig io u s affiliation, and that they were motivated by racial and religious animus, in violation o f Plaintiff's First Amendment and equal protection rights. (Case No. 2:00-CV-73005, E.D. M ic h ., Dkt. No. 1, Compl., ¶¶ 121-22, 143-44, 148.) In both actions Plaintiff is in effect c h a llen g in g an alleged long-standing prison policy or practice of continuing him at Level V o n the basis of his race or religion. This claim was unanimously rejected by the jury in Case N o . 2:00-CV-73005. The claim is not subject to retrial merely because additional time has e la p se d and new individuals occupy the equivalent positions of the MDOC officials who w ere sued in the prior action. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff's c la im s are barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's objections to the R&R (Dkt. No. 95) are OVERRULED. I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that the February 2, 2010, R&R (Dkt. No. 94) is A P P R O V E D and ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' motions for summary judgment (Dkt. N o s . 54, 72) are GRANTED.

2

I T IS FURTHER CERTIFIED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Fed. R. App. P . 24(a)(3) that an appeal of this action would not be in good faith.

D a te:

March 11, 2010

/s/ Robert Holmes Bell ROBERT HOLMES BELL U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3