Colvin #192744 v. Pederson

Filing 47

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 44 ; denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment 24 ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
KENNETH COLVIN,
Plaintiff,
File No. 2:13-CV-219
v.
HON. ROBERT HOLMES BELL
R. PEDERSON,
Defendant.
/

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On February 11, 2015, Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be
denied. (ECF No. 44.) This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R
(ECF No. 46).
This Court makes a de novo determination of those portions of an R&R to which
specific objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “[A] general
objection to a magistrate’s report, which fails to specify the issues of contention, does not
satisfy the requirement that an objection be filed. The objections must be clear enough to
enable the district court to discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious.” Miller
v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995). The Court may accept, reject, or modify any or
all of the Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendations. Id.
Plaintiff objects that the security video of the incident at issue would contradict

Defendant’s version of events and support Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff
also objects that the Magistrate Judge did not explicitly state what evidence created a genuine
issue of material fact.
Plaintiff has set forth a First Amendment retaliation claim that Defendant filed a
misconduct ticket because Plaintiff had filed a grievance about his Kosher meal tray. The
security video captures the events at issue in the misconduct ticket. Even accepting Plaintiff’s
version of events and the security video, this Court finds that Defendant has raised a genuine
issue of material fact in his affidavit by stating that he did not retaliate on account of
Plaintiff’s grievance. Defendant has stated that he would have filed the misconduct ticket
regardless of whether Plaintiff filed a grievance. Thus, summary judgment is inappropriate.
The Court also notes that Defendant was ordered on April 17, 2014, to have a copy
of the video recording available for any future trial in this matter. (ECF No. 26.)
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 46) are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s February 11, 2015, R&R
(ECF No. 44) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF
No. 25) is DENIED.

Dated: March 3, 2015

/s/ Robert Holmes Bell
ROBERT HOLMES BELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2