Thompson #726007 v. Stenglein et al

Filing 20

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 17 , granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment 14 ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)

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

LANIER THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:15-cv-163
v.
HON. ROBERT HOLMES BELL
UNKNOWN STENGLEIN, 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
October 26, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the motion for summary judgment filed by
Defendants Priesk, Ogle, Johnson, Holman, and Schroderus for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies (ECF No. 14) be granted. (ECF No. 17.) The matter is before the
Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R. (ECF No. 18.)
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).
I.
Plaintiff objected to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that he did not fully exhaust
his administrative remedies. Plaintiff argues that he listed Defendants Ogle, Johnson,
Holman, and Schroderus in Step II and Step III of his grievance. He explains that he
exhausted administrative remedies as best he could, and he did not include Defendants Ogle,
Johnson, Holman, and Schroderus in Step I because he could not name them. He also argues
that the jail did not process an additional grievance that he filed. In his objection, he further
asserts that Defendant Stenglein refused to check the log book or video to see who was
working.
II.
Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) policy “[does] not contain any
provision specifying who must be named in a grievance.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218
(2007).

Rather, it requires “only that prisoners be as specific as possible in their

grievances[.]” Id. Thus, “exhaustion is not per se inadequate simply because an individual
later sued was not named in the grievances.” Id. at 219.
Initially, Plaintiff did not identify any officer by name in his Step I grievance. In his
Step II grievance, Plaintiff identified Defendants Stenglein, Ogle, Johnson, Holman, and

2

Schroderus. (ECF No. 15-3, PageID.136-37.) On Step II appeal, the warden reviewed
Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Stenglien, but noted that “[a]ny additional issues will not
be addressed during Step II appeal in accordance with PD-3.02.130 Prisoner Parolee
Grievances.” (ECF No. 15-3, PageID.137.) This decision was upheld at Step III. The only
issue that Plaintiff raised at Step I was that an officer refused to serve him a Ramadan food
tray. At Step II, Plaintiff raised additional issues that Defendants Schroderus and Holman
crossed Plaintiff’s name off of the Ramadan list, and that Defendants Ogle and Johnson lied
to him and refused to give him food. Even though Plaintiff is not required to name each
Defendant in his Step I grievance, he cannot add new issues at Step II under MDOC Policy.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s objection is without merit. For the same reason, his objection that he
did not list Defendants Ogle, Johnson, Holman, and Schroderus in Step I because he could
not name them is also without merit.
Plaintiff also contends that he wrote another grievance, which the jail did not process.
Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment nor has he alleged
or provided any support for this claim. When a motion for summary judgment is filed, the
Court must draw all justifiable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Martin v.
Cincinnati Gas & Elec. Co., 561 F.3d 439, 443 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Jones v. Potter, 488
F.3d 397, 403 (6th Cir. 2007)). Nonetheless, a “plaintiff must do more than rely merely on
the allegations of her pleadings or identify a ‘metaphysical doubt’ or hypothetical
‘plausibility’ based on a lack of evidence; [a plaintiff] is obliged to come forward with

3

‘specific facts,’ based on ‘discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits[.]’”
Chappell v. City of Cleveland, 585 F.3d 901, 912 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c); Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586-87). Although an administrative procedure is unavailable
when “it operates as a simple dead end--with officers unable or consistently unwilling to
provide any relief to aggrieved inmates,” Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1859 (2016),
Plaintiff has not provided the Court with any specific facts to support this claim. Therefore,
his conclusory claim that the jail did not process an additional grievance is insufficient to
overcome Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Defendant Stenglein did not join the motion for summary judgment, and the
Magistrate Judge did not review any of the claims against Defendant Stenglein. Therefore,
Plaintiff’s objection with respect to Defendant Stenglein is without merit. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R (ECF No. 18) are
OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the R&R (ECF No. 17) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF
No. 14) is GRANTED, and Defendants Priesk, Ogle, Johnson, Holman, and Schroderus are
DISMISSED.
Dated: December 2, 2016

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

4