Weatherspoon #471817 v. Williams et al

Filing 51

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 43 ; granting Defendants' motion to sever 33 ; dismissing without prejudice Defendants Williams, Schwesinger, Dicken, Johnson, Mastaw, Beaudion, Raffaele, Marlette, Olson, Simons, Franckowiak, Rogers, and unknown parties ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
MORRIS WEATHERSPOON,
Plaintiff,
File No. 2:14-cv-108
v.
HON. ROBERT HOLMES BELL
C. WILLIAMS et al.,
Defendants.
/

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On December 9, 2015, Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court grant Defendants’ motion to sever
and dismiss Defendants Williams, Schwesinger, Dicken, Johnson, Mastaw, Beaudion,
Raffaele, Marlette, Olson, Simons, Franckowiak, Rogers, and unknown Defendants without
prejudice. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R. (ECF No.
49.)
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.
First, Plaintiff objects that severance is improper because all of the allegations of his
complaint occurred at the same prison facility. However, a common geographic location is
not sufficient to satisfy the requirement in Rule 20(a) that claims against multiple parties
arise from the “same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A).
Plaintiff further contends that Defendants’ actions are all part of a conspiracy against
him. However, the complaint is devoid of any plausible allegations of conspiracy involving
the remaining Defendants (Thibault, McDowell and Eslin) and the Defendants who are to
be dismissed. A conspiracy claim must be pleaded with specificity. Fieger v. Cox, 524 F.3d
770, 776 (6th Cir. 2008); Spadafore v. Gardner, 330 F.3d 849, 854 (6th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff
has not alleged any facts that would support a “plausible suggestion of conspiracy[.]” Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 566 (2007). Plaintiff’s vague and conclusory assertion
that all Defendants in this action agreed to violate his constitutional rights is not sufficient
to state a plausible conspiracy claim.
Next, Plaintiff contends that he should be allowed an opportunity to amend his
complaint and that the Court should grant his motion for discovery in order for him to make
additional allegations of conspiracy. The Court discerns no reason for doing so. Severance
of the parties is appropriate if the joinder requirements of Rule 20 are not satisfied by the

2

allegations of the complaint. The Court has reviewed the complaint and agrees that it does
not satisfy the rule. Plaintiff does not indicate what amendments he would make to bring it
into conformance. Moreover, Plaintiff must state a plausible claim before he can proceed to
discovery. Having failed to allege any plausible basis for a conspiracy between Defendants
Thibault, McDowell, Eslin and the other parties, he has not alleged enough “to raise a
reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of illegal agreement.” Twombly,
550 U.S. at 556. Thus, the Court discerns no error in the recommendation that the Court
sever the action prior to discovery.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 49) are
OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the December 9, 2015, R&R (ECF No. 43) is
APPROVED and ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to sever (ECF No. 33) is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Williams, Schwesinger, Dicken,
Johnson, Mastaw, Beaudion, Raffaele, Marlette, Olson, Simons, Franckowiak, Rogers, and
unknown parties are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Dated: February 4, 2016

/s/ Robert Holmes Bell
ROBERT HOLMES BELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3