Weatherspoon #471817 v. Strahan et al

Filing 53

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 44 re 39 , 37 , 34 , 29 , 32 , 41 : Defendants' Motion 29 is GRANTED; case to continue against Defendant Strahan; Defendants' Motions 37 39 41 are DENIED AS MOOT; signed by Judge Gordon J. Quist (Judge Gordon J. Quist, jmt)

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

MORRIS WEATHERSPOON,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:16-CV-263

v.

HON. GORDON J. QUIST

KIM ESSLIN, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER ADOPTING IN PART
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On September 12, 2017, Magistrate Judge Timothy Greeley issued a Report and
Recommendation (R & R) (ECF No. 44) recommending that the Court grant Defendants Thibault,
McDowell, and Esslin’s motion to dismiss and dismiss this case in its entirety. Defendants argued
in their motion to dismiss that Plaintiff’s claims against them are barred by the doctrines of claim
and issue preclusion based on this Court’s June 20, 2017, findings and judgment in Weatherspoon
v. Thibault , et al., No. 2:14-CV-108 (ECF Nos. 176, 177.) The magistrate judge concluded that
Plaintiff’s claims in the instant case are not barred by claim preclusion. (ECF No. 44 at
PageID.404.) However, the magistrate judge concluded that issue preclusion applies in light of the
Court’s findings in Case No. 2:14-CV-108. (Id. at PageID.405.) The magistrate judge thus
recommended that the Court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismiss this case in its
entirety. (Id. at PageID.406.)
Plaintiff has filed Objections to the R & R. (ECF No. 49.) 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 and Plaintiff’s

Objections, the Court concludes that the R & R should be adopted with regard to the magistrate
judge’s recommendation that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted. The Court will reject the
recommendation that the case be dismissed in its entirety because Plaintiff’s claims against
Defendant Strahan have been reinstated. (ECF. No. 47.)
Although Plaintiff’s Objections are lengthy, they do not undermine the magistrate judge’s
analysis that this Court’s findings in Case No. 2:14-CV-108 preclude Plaintiff’s allegations in this
case that Defendants Thibault, McDowell, and Esslin acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s
health or safety for purposes of an Eighth Amendment claim. In his Objections, Plaintiff continues
to focus on the arguments he made in his post-trial motions in Case No. 2:14-CV-108, which the
Court recently rejected. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to persuade the Court that the magistrate judge
erred in his analysis in the R & R.
Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the September 12, 2017, Report and Recommendation
(ECF No. 44) is ADOPTED IN PART. Defendants Thibault, McDowell, and Esslin’s Motion to
Dismiss (captioned motion for summary judgment) (ECF No. 29) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s
claims against those Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The case will continue
with regard to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Strahan.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 32)
and Plaintiff’s Motions to Strike and to Compel (ECF Nos. 37, 39 and 41) are DENIED AS MOOT.

Dated: December 15, 2017

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

2