Nunnally #181375 v. Woods et al

Filing 122

ORDER REJECTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 118 re 108 : Defendant Eicher's Motion for Summary Judgment 108 is GRANTED; case closed; signed by Judge Gordon J. Quist (Judge Gordon J. Quist, jmt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION

JOHN NUNNALLY,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:12-CV-378

v.

Hon. Gordon J. Quist

JEFFREY WOODS, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER REJECTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On September 11, 2015, the Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley recommending that
the Court grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In particular, the Court rejected the
portion of the Report and Recommendation pertaining to Defendant Eicher, and ruled that Eicher
was not entitled to summary judgment. Eicher filed a motion for reconsideration of that Order,
arguing that he could provide evidence that was lacking in his original motion. Unfortunately,
Eicher failed to provide such evidence with his motion. Because the Court could not adequately
interpret the evidence presented, it denied Eicher’s motion, but allowed for him to file a renewed
motion.
Eicher filed a renewed motion for summary judgment on January 4, 2016. The magistrate
judge—unaware that the Court had permitted Eicher to deviate from the Case Management
Order—recommended that the Court deny Eicher’s motion. Because Eicher has finally provided
evidence sufficient to support his factual allegations, the Court will reject that recommendation and
grant Eicher’s motion.

Plaintiff has alleged a retaliation claim against Eicher based on the issuance of a misconduct
ticket to Plaintiff on June 9, 2011. On July 1, 2011, Colleen Brown held a hearing and found
Plaintiff guilty of the alleged misconduct. (See ECF No. 109-2.) The Sixth Circuit has previously
held that “[a] finding of guilt based upon some evidence of a violation of prison rules essentially
checkmates a retaliation claim.” Clemons v. Cook, 52 F. App’x 762, 763 (6th Cir. 2002) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Thus, even if there is an issue of fact as to whether Plaintiff previously
pled guilty to the misconduct at issue, that dispute is irrelevant given the ultimate finding of guilt.
Any dispute about the ultimate disposition of Plaintiff’s television is similarly irrelevant.
Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation issued March 2, 2016 (ECF No.
118) is REJECTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Eicher’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(ECF No. 108) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Eicher are DISMISSED with
prejudice.
This case is concluded.
A separate judgment will issue.

Dated: March 14, 2016

/s/ Gordon J. Quist
GORDON J. QUIST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2