Reed #487837 v. Corizon et al

Filing 75

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 43 , 39 , 66 ; signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker (Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker, sdb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION

DWAYNE REED,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 2:17-CV-156
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
BRENDA BUCHANAN, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Vermaat’s Report and Recommendation in this
matter (ECF No. 66), Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF No. 69), and Defendant Buchanan’s Response
(ECF No. 73.) Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, where, as here, a party has objected to
portions of a Report and Recommendation, “[t]he district judge . . . has a duty to reject the
magistrate judge’s recommendation unless, on de novo reconsideration, he or she finds it
justified.” 12 WRIGHT, MILLER, & MARCUS, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, § 3070.2, at 451
(3d ed. 2014). Specifically, the Rules provide that:
The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s
disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject,
or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the
matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). De novo review in these circumstances requires at least a review of the
evidence before the Magistrate Judge. Hill v. Duriron Co., 656 F.2d 1208, 1215 (6th Cir. 1981).
The Court has reviewed de novo the claims and evidence presented to the Magistrate Judge; the

Report and Recommendation itself; Plaintiff’s Objections; and Defendant Buchanan’s Response.
The Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, which recommends
summary judgment in favor of Defendants Headley and Buchanan, factually sound and legally
correct.
The Magistrate Judge carefully and thoroughly considered the evidentiary record, the
parties’ arguments, and the governing law. Plaintiff’s objections do not address the Report and
Recommendation in a persuasive way. Plaintiff’s substantive objection to the medical records does
not affect the analysis. Of course the evidence has to be admissible at trial, but there is nothing of
record to cast any doubt on the authenticity of Plaintiff’s medical records while in custody, or the
ability, if necessary, to lay a foundation under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(b). Nor does Plaintiff
deny the accuracy of what the records report. Magistrate Judge Vermaat properly found that
Defendants Headley and Buchanan are entitled to summary judgment in their favor on the merits
of Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claims.1 None of Plaintiff’s objections change the
fundamental analysis in this matter. Summary judgment in favor of Defendants Buchanan and
Headley is appropriate, for the very reasons the Report and Recommendation details.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED:
1.

The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 66) is

APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
2.

Defendants Buchanan and Headley’s Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos.

39 and 43) are GRANTED.

1

In his Objections, Plaintiff states that if Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to Defendant
Buchanan, the Court should dismiss Defendant Buchanan from the case without prejudice. Because Defendant
Buchanan is entitled to summary judgment in her favor on the merits, dismissal with prejudice is appropriate.

3.

For the same reasons that the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims, the Court discerns

no good-faith basis for an appeal within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611 (6th Cir. 1997) (overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock,
549 U.S. 199 (2007)).

Dated:

September 12, 2019

/s/ Robert J. Jonker
ROBERT J. JONKER
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE