Holloway #159258 v. Kinross Correctional Facility et al

Filing 29

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 27 , granting Defendants' McLaren, Hough, and Hubbard's motion for summary judgment 20 ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)

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

RANDY HOLLOWAY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:14-cv-83
HON. ROBERT HOLMES BELL

DUNCAN MCLAREN, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On August 7, 2015, Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley issued a Report &
Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 27) recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 20) be granted, dismissing this case and Defendants Duncan McLaren, Lawrence
Hough, and Peter Hubbard without prejudice. The matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections
to the R&R (ECF No. 28).
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 to the Magistrate Judge’s determination that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies against Defendants when he failed to name Defendants at Step I of the
grievance process as required by the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) Policy Directive.
Plaintiff, however, makes no argument that he did name Defendants at Step I of the grievance
process. Rather, Plaintiff argues that he exhausted his administrative remedies against Defendants
when he named Kathy Olsen in his Step I grievance. Because Plaintiff failed to name Defendants
McLaren, Hough, and Hubbard in his Step I grievance, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
is granted. See Sullivan v. Kasajaru, 316 F. App’x 469, 470 (6th Cir. 2009) (finding that the current
MDOC policy directive “explicitly required [the prisoner] to name each person against whom he
grieved” and affirming the district court’s dismissal of a prisoner’s claim for failure to properly
exhaust his administrative remedies).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s August 7, 2015, R&R (ECF No.
27) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No.
20) is GRANTED and Defendants McLaren, Hough, and Hubbard are DISMISSED without
prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court certifies that an appeal would not be taken in
good faith.
A judgment will be entered that is consistent with this order.

Dated: August 28, 2015

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