Bradford #351363 v. Isard et al

Filing 70

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 66 ; Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment 62 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
PARNELL BRADFORD,
Plaintiff,
File No: 2:15-cv-119
v.
HON. JANET T. NEFF
DAVID ISARD, et al.,
Defendants.
/
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING
AND ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 8,
2017, United States Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley issued a Report & Recommendation
(“R&R”) recommending that the Court grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No.
62) on Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim and deny the motion on the Eighth Amendment
claim. (R&R, ECF No. 66.) The matter is before the Court on Defendants’ objection to the R&R.
(ECF No. 67.) Plaintiff has filed a response to Defendants’ objection. (ECF No. 69.)
This Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the R&R to
which specific objection has been made, and may accept, reject, or modify any or all of the
Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendations. 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). After conducting the de novo review, the Court is satisfied that the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation is legally sound, and so the objection is overruled.

Defendants object to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that a question of fact exists as to
whether Defendants had knowledge of a threat to Plaintiff and whether they took appropriate action.
Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the risk of harm was not
sufficiently serious and they did not act with deliberate indifference.
A prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate
humane conditions of confinement unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to
inmate safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 827 (1994). The official must both be aware of
facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of harm exists, and he must also
draw the inference. Id. Thus, in order to support a failure-to-protect claim, two conditions must be
met: (1) “the deprivation alleged must be, objectively, sufficiently serious,” and (2) that the
defendants “must have a sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Id. at 834 (internal citations and
quotations omitted).
Defendants Hough and Hubbard admit that they received emails about the alleged threat
made to Plaintiff, however; because he was already in segregation at the time, they determined that
he was not facing a direct threat to his safety. (Resp. to Pl.’s Interrogatories Exs. F, G, ECF No.
63.) Nonetheless, the alleged threat refers to Plaintiff’s risk when he returned to general population,
not while he was in segregation. (ECF No. 62, PageID.269.) Plaintiff was returned to general
population four days after submitting a grievance expressing concern for his safety in general
population. Defendants Isard and LaLonde contend that they do not remember speaking with
Plaintiff about the alleged threat upon release to general population.
The R&R accurately recites the facts and correctly applies pertinent law. The Court agrees
with and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. There is a genuine dispute of fact as to whether

2

Defendants Isard and LaLonde had knowledge of the alleged threat and whether Defendants Hough,
Hubbard, Isard, and LaLonde took appropriate action. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the May 8, 2017 R&R (ECF No. 66) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s objection to the R&R (ECF No. 67) is
OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment
(ECF No. 62) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Plaintiff’s Fourteenth

Amendment and state law claims are DISMISSED.

Dated: June 9, 2017

/s/ Janet T. Neff
Janet T. Neff
United States District Judge

3