Fields #261409 v. Lesatz et al

Filing 52

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 41 denying Defendants' Motion 26 for Summary Judgment; signed by Judge Gordon J. Quist (Judge Gordon J. Quist, jmt)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION _______________________ CHARLES FIELDS, Plaintiff, Case No. 2:14-CV-67 v. HON. GORDON J. QUIST DAN LESATZ, et al., Defendants. __________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On July 9, 2015, Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley issued a Report and Recommendation (R & R) recommending that the Court deny Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Both parties have filed objections to the R & R, which the Court has reviewed de novo. For the reasons that follow, the Court will overrule the objections and adopt the R & R. Defendants’ Objections The magistrate judge concluded that Defendants failed to satisfy their burden of demonstrating that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because they failed to explain which claims were unexhausted. Rather, the magistrate judge explained, Defendants simply acknowledged that some claims were exhausted and glossed over their argument as to which allegations were unexhausted. Defendants have objected to the magistrate judge’s conclusion, arguing that they sufficiently demonstrated that Plaintiff failed to exhaust the majority of his claims. Having reviewed Defendants’ brief in support of their motion for summary judgment, as well as their objections, the Court cannot decipher which claims Defendants believe are unexhausted. For instance, in their objections, Defendants describe Plaintiff’s claim that he told Defendant Sprader that another prisoner had threatened him, and that the prisoner subsequently threw hot liquids in Plaintiff’s face. Defendant do not list this claim as one they believe was exhausted, but they also do not argue that it was unexhausted. Defendants bear the burden of demonstrating failure to exhaust. In this case, Defendants’ briefing has been unclear and, at some points, inaccurate. Accordingly, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge that Defendants have failed to meet their burden. Plaintiff’s Objections Plaintiff argues that the R & R fails to accurately describe Plaintiff’s claims. Because the Court has concluded that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment should be denied in its entirety, it need not address Plaintiff’s argument that his complaint contains claims in addition to those described in the R & R. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the July 9, 2015 Report and Recommendation (dkt. #41) is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the objections to the Report and Recommendation (dkt. ##46, 48) are OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (dkt. #26) is DENIED. Dated: September 2, 2015 /s/ Gordon J. Quist GORDON J. QUIST UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?