Evans #222071 v. Watson et al

Filing 35

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 33 re 22 : Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 22 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 EVANS,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:12-CV-424

v.

Hon. Gordon J. Quist

PAUL WATSON, et al.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On June 11, 2014, Magistrate Judge Greeley issued a Report and Recommendation (R & R),
in which he recommends granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing
Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to exhaust. Plaintiff objected to the R & R. Having conducted a de
novo review of the R & R, Plaintiff’s objections, and the pertinent portions of the record, the Court
concludes that the R & R should be adopted and that Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed.
Plaintiff argues that a plaintiff is not required to plead and prove administrative exhaustion.
See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218, 127 S. Ct. 910 (2007). In this case, Defendants raised the
issue of exhaustion in a motion for summary judgment, and provided evidence that Plaintiff had not
exhausted his administrative remedies. Plaintiff failed to refute that evidence. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s first objection is without merit.
Plaintiff further argues that he was not required to name each defendant in his grievance.
The magistrate judge found that the grievance at issue in this case was insufficient to exhaust
Plaintiff’s claim against any defendant—including the single defendant named in the
grievance—because it did not address the facts that form the basis of Plaintiff’s claims. Thus, it is

unnecessary to determine whether Plaintiff was required to name the other defendants in the
grievance.
Finally, Plaintiff argues that the Court should not dismiss his claims on exhaustion grounds
because he has requested injunctive relief. The Court has reviewed the docket and found nothing
that could be construed as a motion for injunctive relief. Accordingly, the Court will not address
the merits of this argument.
THEREFORE,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge filed June
11, 2014 (dkt. no. 33) is approved and adopted as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (dkt. no.
22) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.
This case is concluded.

Dated: July 10, 2014

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

2