Harris #447304 v. Horton et al

Filing 84

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 81 ; Defendants' motion for summary judgment 65 is granted; signed by Judge Gordon J. Quist (jas)

Case 2:17-cv-00141-GJQ-MV ECF No. 84 filed 05/06/20 PageID.487 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
__________________________
ISSAC DECRAIS HARRIS #447304,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:17-CV-141
HON. GORDON J. QUIST

C. HORTON, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil rights action brought by state prisoner, Issac Decrais Harris, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Harris asserts failure to protect and retaliation claims against Defendants C.
Horton, D. Isard, R. Batho, J. Miller, D. LaLonde, and K. Dunton. Defendants filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment and Qualified Immunity. (ECF No. 65.) On February 11, 2020, U.S.
Magistrate Judge Maarten Vermaat issued a Report and Recommendation (R. & R.),
recommending that Defendants’ motion be granted and that this matter be dismissed. (ECF No.
81.) Harris subsequently filed objections. (ECF No. 82.)
Upon receiving objections to the R. & R., 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). This Court may accept, reject, or modify any
or all of the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b). After conducting a de novo review of the R. & R., the objections, and the pertinent
portions of the record, the Court concludes that the R. & R. should be adopted.

Case 2:17-cv-00141-GJQ-MV ECF No. 84 filed 05/06/20 PageID.488 Page 2 of 4

Before addressing Harris’ objections, the Court will briefly summarize the facts in this
case. On January 19, 2017, Harris requested protection from a prison gang. When he was
interviewed by the Security Classification Committee, Harris provided a vague story about a gang
member threatening him on the yard. Harris could not identify the gang member. After failing to
verify Harris’ version of events by video, Defendants Miller and LaLonde concluded that Harris
did not need protection in temporary segregation. Harris alleges that on March 20, 2017, he was
stabbed on the way to the chow hall. Despite having been stabbed, Harris went to the chow hall
and ate his dinner before reporting the incident. When he was finished eating, Harris went to the
control room to report the alleged stabbing. Harris again could not identify his alleged attacker.
He was subsequently treated for a minor “superficial injury to skin.” Following the alleged
stabbing, Harris requested protection.

Prison officials again investigated Harris’ story but

determined that Harris had not been stabbed and that protection was not warranted. Harris,
however, refused to return to his cell and was issued a DDO misconduct ticket. Harris then filed
a grievance. Over the next several weeks, Harris received several more DDO misconduct tickets
and filed several more grievances.
In his objections, Harris argues that Defendants were deliberately indifferent because each
Defendant knew of the requests for protection. But the magistrate judge never found that
Defendants did not know of the protection requests. Instead, the magistrate judge determined that
“prison officials conducted multiple investigations of Harris’s claims – including his claims
regarding the alleged stabbing – and concluded that Harris was not stabbed and did not face a
substantial risk of assault.” (ECF No. 81 at PageID.461.) As the magistrate judge correctly
concluded, “[a]t best, like the plaintiff in Stewart [v. Love, 696 F.2d 43 (6th Cir. 1982)], Harris
may establish that Defendants were negligent, but Harris has not adduced evidence showing that

2

Case 2:17-cv-00141-GJQ-MV ECF No. 84 filed 05/06/20 PageID.489 Page 3 of 4

any Defendant was consciously aware of a serious threat to Harris and acted with deliberate
indifference to that threat.” (Id. at PageID.467.)
As to the retaliation claims, Harris does not specifically object to the magistrate judge’s
finding that the DDO misconduct tickets were not retaliatory. Instead, Harris seems to suggest that
returning him to “Level 2 East Side” was an adverse act. Harris states that he was stabbed in Level
2 East Side and that Defendant LaLonde told him he was going back to Level 2 East Side because
he filed a grievance. Harris alleges that this statement was made on April 14, 2017. “If the
defendant can show that he would have taken the same action in the absence of the protected
activity, he is entitled to prevail on summary judgment.” Thaddeus–X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378,
394 (6th Cir. 1999) . Here, the record establishes that, after it was determined that Harris was not
stabbed and that there was no substantial risk of harm, Officer Anderson ordered Harris to return
to his unit on March 20, 2017. (ECF No. 83-1 at PageID.486.) Harris did not file his first grievance
until April 1, 2017. (ECF No. 1 at PageID.9.) Because Harris was ordered to return to his unit
before he filed any grievance, Defendants have shown that they would have taken the same action
in the absence of the protected conduct.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the February 11, 2020, Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 81) is adopted as the Opinion of the Court. Harris’ objections (ECF
No. 82) are overruled.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No.
65) is GRANTED for the reasons set forth in the R. & R. Therefore, Harris’ claims are dismissed
with prejudice.

3

Case 2:17-cv-00141-GJQ-MV ECF No. 84 filed 05/06/20 PageID.490 Page 4 of 4

This case is concluded.
A separate judgment will enter.
Dated: May 6, 2020

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

4