Moore #255379 v. Olson et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 56 re 43 : Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 43 is GRANTED; case closed; signed by Judge Gordon J. Quist (Judge Gordon J. Quist, jmt)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 2:16-CV-10
KATHLEEN OLSON, et al.,
HON. GORDON J. QUIST
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, Anthony Moore, is currently an inmate with the Michigan Department of
Corrections. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff allegesthat Defendants were deliberately
indifferent to a risk that another inmate would assault him. (ECF No. 1.) Defendants moved for
summary judgment, arguing that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law, or, in the
alternative, that they were entitled to qualified immunity. (ECF No. 43.) On July 11, 2017,
Magistrate Judge Greeley issued a Report and Recommendation (R & R) recommending that
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted as to all of Plaintiff’s claims. (ECF No.
56.) Plaintiff timely objected. (ECF No. 58.) 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.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). After conducting a de novo review of the R & R, Plaintiff’s objections, and the
pertinent portions of the record, the Court concludes that the R & R should be adopted.
Defendants argued that they are entitled to qualified immunity. A plaintiff’s claim survives
the defense of qualified immunity at summary judgment if (1) “the facts alleged make out a
violation of a constitutional right” and (2) “the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ when the
event occurred such that a reasonable officer would have known that his conduct violated it.”
Martin v. City of Broadview Heights, 712 F.3d 951, 957 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Pearson v.
Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231, 129 S. Ct. 808, 815 (2009)). The Court can address these issues in
any order. Id. When conducting the first part of the qualified immunity analysis, “the Court
considers only the facts that were knowable to the defendant officers.” White v. Pauly, ____ U.S.
___, 137 S. Ct. 548, 550 (2017) (citing Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2466,
2474 (2015)). Because this is a motion for summary judgment, those facts are viewed in the light
most favorable to Plaintiff. Id.
“[F]or a right to be clearly established, ‘existing precedent must have placed the statutory
or constitutional question beyond debate.’” Id., 137 S. Ct. at 551 (quoting Mullenix v. Luna, ___
U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 305, 308 (2015)). “‘[C]learly established law’ may not be defined at  ‘a
high level of generality.’” Arrington-Bey v. Cty. of Bedford Heights, 858 F.3d 988, 992 (6th Cir.
2017) (quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 742, 131 S. Ct. 2074, 2084 (2011)). “The
Supreme Court recently reminded us that a plaintiff must identify a case with a similar fact pattern
that would have given ‘fair and clear warning to officers’ about what the law requires.” Id. (quoting
White, 137 S. Ct. at 552).
In opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff filed a brief and a
declaration. Plaintiff simply relies on his declaration and cites the cases outlining the general
standards for the various claims he makes in his complaint. (ECF No. 53 at PageID.414.) These
arguments fail to meet the standard necessary to overcome qualified immunity set forth in White
because they do not cite cases that present fact patterns that would have given “fair and clear
warning to” Defendants. White, 137 S. Ct. at 552.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objection to the Report and Recommendation
(ECF No. 58) is OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 56) is
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No.
43) is GRANTED.
A separate judgment will enter.
This case is concluded.
Dated: August 31, 2017
/s/ Gordon J. Quist
GORDON J. QUIST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?