McClendon #186015 v. Caruso et al
Filing
65
OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 49 and granting 26 , ; signed by Judge R. Allan Edgar (Judge R. Allan Edgar, cam)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
ANTHONY MCCLENDON,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:12-cv-230
HON. R. ALLAN EDGAR
v.
PATRICIA CARUSO, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
OPINION & ORDER
On February 19, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley entered a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) that defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted if defendants
authenticated the documents attached in support of their motion. (Docket #49) In response, defendants
filed an affidavit to authenticate the documents. (Docket #51) On March 5, 2014, this Court approved
and adopted the R&R, and entered judgment against plaintiff for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies. (Docket #53) The plaintiff did not receive a copy of the R&R and was unable to object
because he was moved to another correctional facility at the time the R&R was filed and mailed. This
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for relief, set aside the judgment, and granted plaintiff an opportunity to
object to the R&R. (Docket #57) Plaintiff has responded through an “Affidavit of Facts” (Docket #62),
“Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment For Failure to Exhaust
Administrative Remedies” (Docket #63) and a brief in support of the motion (Docket #63).
Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because three of his Step II grievance
appeals were untimely: URF-10-02-0486-17b was filed February 8, 2010, and required a Step II appeal
filed by March 11, 2010; URF-10-05-1908-17a was filed on May 13, 2010, and required a Step II appeal
filed by June 22, 2010; and URF-10-05-2062-17a was filed on May 26, 2010, and required a Step II
appeal filed by June 16, 2010. Plaintiff argues that he was unable to timely appeal because all his
personal and state property was removed as a result of being placed “on [suicide] observation for 39
days without any property.” (Docket #62: Plaintiff’s Objection to R&R) Around this time, plaintiff filed
multiple Step I grievances: URF-10-04-1417-12b on April 15, 2010; URF-10-04-145412z on April 19,
2010; URF-10-05-1811-28b on May 12, 2010; URF-10-05-1858-28z on May 14, 2010; and URF-10-062399-12b on June 21, 2010. Plaintiff filed URF-10-02-0486-17b Step II appeal on August 11, 2010.
Making matters more complicated is that plaintiff is unable to provide the exact dates of his
observation because, he claims, he does not have access to the files containing this information.
Although plaintiff claims that he was unable to file appeals for three of the grievances he neglects to
explain how he was able to file other grievances around this time. Between the filing of the first
grievance and the appeal on the third grievance the only time plaintiff did not file a grievance or appeal
for thirty-nine straight days falls between the filing of URF 10-02-0486-17b on February 8, 2010, and
URF-10-04-1417-12b on April 15, 2010. Because the thirty-nine day observation could not have
occurred when the appeals for grievances URF-10-05-1908-17a and URF-10-05-2062-17a were due,
those appeals were properly denied as untimely.
The final grievance, URF-10-02-0486-17b, is also problematic. While plaintiff may have been
in observation when this appeal was due it is clear that plaintiff could have filed an appeal at least as
early as April 15, 2010. We know this because plaintiff filed grievance URF-10-04-1417-12b that day.
In fact, plaintiff did not file an appeal of his Step I denial until August 11, 2010, almost four months
later. Plaintiff’s claims clearly lack merit in the face of the volume of grievances plaintiff did file during
the time period he alleges to be unable to appeal. Accordingly, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge
Greeley’s analysis that Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust his claims.
Magistrate Judge Greeley’s R&R is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ad W.D. Mich. L. Civ. R. 72.3(b). (Docket #49) Defendants’ motion
for summary judgment is GRANTED. (Docket #26) Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. (Docket #12) A judgment consistent with this Opinion and Order will be entered.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
9/9/2014
/s/ R. Allan Edgar
R. Allan Edgar
United States District Court Judge
2
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?