Lamb #188625 v. Corizon et al
Filing
82
OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 73 ; Defendant Crompton's motion for summary judgment 29 is GRANTED; Defendant Lamb is DISMISSED; Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and default 37 is DENIED; Plaintiff's emergency motion 59 is DENIED; Plaintiff's motion to amend 66 is DENIED; Judgment to issue; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)
Case 2:18-cv-00061-JTN-MV ECF No. 82 filed 04/01/20 PageID.815 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
DAVID K. LAMB,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:18-cv-61
v.
HON. JANET T. NEFF
CORIZON, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a prisoner civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The only claim
remaining is Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Crompton and Lamb.
Defendant Crompton moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff moved for default judgment,
emergency injunctive relief, and to amend his Complaint. The matter was referred to the
Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R), recommending that this
Court grant Defendant Crompton’s motion, dismiss Defendant Lamb, and deny Plaintiff’s
motions. The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and
Recommendation. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3), the
Court has performed de novo consideration of those portions of the Report and Recommendation
to which objections have been made. The Court denies the objections and issues this Opinion and
Order.
First, Plaintiff argues that “[t]he Magistrate failed to apply Rule 8 to the Defendant’s
failures” (Obj., ECF No. 76 at PageID.791). Plaintiff’s objection is misplaced. Federal Rule of
Case 2:18-cv-00061-JTN-MV ECF No. 82 filed 04/01/20 PageID.816 Page 2 of 4
Civil Procedure 8 governs responses to pleadings, not responses to motions for summary judgment.
Thus, this objection is denied.
Second, Plaintiff references two inmate affidavits and argues that the Magistrate Judge
erred by not addressing “these claims raised in the complaint” (id. at PageID.793). A magistrate
judge is not required to refer within a report and recommendation to all evidence reviewed. The
objection is therefore denied.
Third, Plaintiff argues that because the Magistrate Judge “did not point to any medical
evidence that lead [sic] to a medical spinal cord diagnoses,” the Magistrate Judge erred in
concluding that Defendant Crompton “did not interfere with the MRI” but took reasonable
measures to abate Plaintiff’s medical condition (id. at PageID.792-795). Plaintiff’s argument does
not reveal any error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. As the Magistrate Judge pointed out,
[d]ifferences in judgment between an inmate and prison medical personnel
regarding the appropriate medical diagnoses or treatment are not enough to state a
deliberate indifference claim. Sanderfer v. Nichols, 62 F.3d 151, 154-155 (6th Cir.
1995); Ward v. Smith, No. 955-6666, 1996 WL 627724, at *1 (6th Cir. Oct. 29,
1996). This is even if the misdiagnosis results in an inadequate course of treatment
and considerable suffering. Gabehart v. Chapleau, No. 96-5050, 1997 WL 160322
at *2 (6th Cir. Apr. 4, 1997).
(R&R, ECF No. 73 at PageID.771). This objection is therefore denied.
Last, Plaintiff disagrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “that the case against
[Defendant Lamb] should be dismissed” (Obj., ECF No. 76 at PageID.797-798). However,
Plaintiff fails to demonstrate any error in the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning, which is that “the basis
for Plaintiff’s case against RN Lamb—her involvement in the grievance process—is insufficient
to show personal involvement in the alleged unconstitutional conduct” (R&R, ECF No. 73 at
PageID.785).
“[A]n objection that does nothing more than state a disagreement with the
magistrate’s suggested resolution, or simply summarizes what has been presented before, is not an
‘objection’ as that term is used in the context of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72.” Brown v.
2
Case 2:18-cv-00061-JTN-MV ECF No. 82 filed 04/01/20 PageID.817 Page 3 of 4
City of Grand Rapids, Michigan, No. 16-2433, 2017 WL 4712064, at *2 (6th Cir. June 16, 2017)
(citation omitted).
For these reasons, and those reasons more fully stated by Defendants in their responses to
Plaintiff’s objections (ECF Nos. 80-81), Plaintiff’s objections fail to demonstrate any factual or
legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s analyses or ultimate conclusions. The objections are therefore
denied. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as
the Opinion of this Court. Further, a Judgment will be entered consistent with this Opinion and
Order and the prior Orders (ECF Nos. 5 & 71) entered in this case. See FED. R. CIV. P. 58. The
Court declines to certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal of this decision would
not be taken in good faith. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610 (6th Cir. 1997),
overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 206, 211-12 (2007).
Therefore:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF No. 76) are DENIED and the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 73) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Crompton’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 29) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Lamb is dismissed from this proceeding.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and for
Default (ECF No. 37) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Immediate
Injunction (ECF No. 59) is DENIED.
3
Case 2:18-cv-00061-JTN-MV ECF No. 82 filed 04/01/20 PageID.818 Page 4 of 4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (ECF No. 66) is
DENIED.
/s/ Janet T. Neff
Dated: April 1, 2020
JANET T. NEFF
United States District Judge
4
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?