Cowan v. Miller et al

Filing 94

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 91 and ORDER granting defendants' motion for summary judgment 85 ; signed by District Judge Paul L. Maloney (Judge Paul L. Maloney, cmc)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION WILLIAM COWAN, #229059, Plaintiff, -vUNKNOWN MILLER and JEFFREY WOODS, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 2:17-cv-37 Honorable Paul L. Maloney ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff William Cowan, a prisoner under the control of the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC), filed a complaint alleging his civil rights were violated. The remaining Defendants are Corrections Officer Trent Miller and Warden Jeffrey Woods. Defendants filed motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 85.) The magistrate judge issued a report recommending the motion be granted. (ECF No. 91.) Cowan filed objections. (ECF No. 92.) After being served with a report and recommendation (R&R) issued by a magistrate judge, a party has fourteen days to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A district court judge reviews de novo the portions of the R&R to which objections have been filed. 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Only those objections that are specific are entitled to a de novo review under the statute. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (holding the district court need not provide de novo review where the objections are frivolous, conclusive or too general because the burden is on the parties to Apinpoint those portions of the magistrate=s report that the district court must specifically consider@). The magistrate judge recommends dismissing the claims because neither Miller nor Woods were personally involved in the incident involved the alleged use of excessive force. The magistrate judge also found that neither Miller nor Woods could be held liable as a supervisor. Cowan's objections generally fail to address these specific conclusions and recommendations. Instead, Cowan argues that Miller can be held liable because he put into motion the events that eventually led to the use of handcuffs, which is the alleged use of excessive force. Cowan asserts that Miller failed to provide a Ramadan meal, which caused a diabetic blackout, which led to the use of handcuffs. But, Cowan's meal claim was dismissed earlier in this lawsuit. (ECF No. 40.) Cowan also argues that Miller and Woods were part of a larger conspiracy to violate his rights. Cowan alleges evidence was not preserved, false statements have been filed, etc. Cowan, however, has not pled a conspiracy to violate his constitutional rights. 2 Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 91) is ADOPTED as the Opinion of this Court. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 85) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Miller and Woods are DISMISSED. Finally, the Court has reviewed the record and finds that reasonable jurists would not debate whether these issues should be resolved in a different manner. Therefore, the Court DENIES a Certificate of Ability. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: February 14, 2018 /s/ Paul L. Maloney Paul L. Maloney United States District Judge 3

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?