Gardner #287557 v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al

Filing 85

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 79 ; plaintiff's objections 82 are overruled, plaintiff's motion for declaratory judgment 72 and motion to supplement and for default judgment 74 are denied, and defendants' motion for summary judgment 69 is granted, signed by Judge Gordon J. Quist (Judge Gordon J. Quist, kvt)

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

ERIC GARDNER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:16-CV-2

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,

HON. GORDON J. QUIST

Defendants.
___________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, Eric Gardner, filed a civil rights action against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Gardner’s surviving claim is that Defendants Haske, Murphy, Thomas, Frechette, and
McDonald interfered with his right to access the courts. Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment, asserting that Gardner failed to show any actual injury and that they are entitled to
qualified immunity. (ECF No. 69.) Gardner responded and requested a declaratory judgment
(ECF No. 72), and filed a motion to supplement and for default judgment. (ECF No. 74.)
Magistrate Judge Timothy Greeley issued a Report and Recommendation (R & R) on January 11,
2018, recommending that the Court grant Defendants’ motion, deny Gardner’s motions, and
dismiss the case because Gardner “has failed to show that his rights have been violated . . . [and]
has failed to sustain his burden of proof in response to Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment.” (ECF No. 79 at PageID.749.) Gardner filed an objection to the R & R dated January
23, 2018. (ECF No. 82.)

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), a petitioner “may serve and file
specific written objections” to the R & R, and the Court is to consider any proper objection. Local
Rule 72.3(b) likewise requires that written objections “shall specifically identify the portions” of
the R & R to which a petitioner objects. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), upon receiving objections
to a report and recommendation, the district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made.” After conducting a de novo review of the R & R, Gardner’s Objections, and the pertinent
portions of the record, the Court concludes that the R & R should be adopted.
The R & R concluded that Gardner failed to offer sufficient evidence to demonstrate actual
injury—a bar to his access to the courts claim and, as a result, entitling Defendants to qualified
immunity. Gardner asserts in his objection that “the admissions on file show overwhelming
evidence of genuine issue[s] of material fact.” (ECF No. 82 at PageID.757.) Gardner then restates
his claim in a bulleted list, and states that “[t]his misconduct clearly violated the Plaintiff’s U.S.
Constitutional Rights in which a reasonable person would have known to have caused such
violations.” (Id. at PageID.757–58.) Gardner cites supporting case law and asserts that “[t]he
Admissions clearly showed a valiant attempt by the Plaintiff to show continuing actual injury.”
(Id. at PageID.759.) In sum, Gardner’s objections are vague, conclusory, and exceedingly broad
and do not substantively engage with the R & R. “[I]ssues adverted to in a perfunctory manner,
unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived.” Engler v.
Arnold, 862 F.3d 571 (6th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). Accordingly, Gardner has failed to raise
any proper objections to the R & R.
Therefore,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s R & R (ECF No. 79) is
APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the Opinion of this Court, and Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF No.
82) are OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No.
69) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s motion for declaratory judgment (ECF No. 72) and motion to
supplement and for default judgment (ECF No. 74) are DENIED.
This case is concluded.
A separate judgment will issue

Dated: March 5, 2018

/s/ Gordon J. Quist
GORDON J. QUIST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3