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)

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