Martin #338567 v. Rink et al

Filing 20

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 16 re 9 : case to continue on remaining claim; signed by Judge Gordon J. Quist (Judge Gordon J. Quist, jmt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION

FREDRICK MARTEZ MARTIN #338567,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:18-CV-66

DAVE RINK, et al.,

HON. GORDON J. QUIST

Defendants.
_____________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff, Fredrick Martez Martin, a state prisoner at a Michigan Department of Corrections
(MDOC) facility, brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that
Defendants Chaplain Dave Rink, former Special Activities Coordinator Michael Martin, Special
Activities Coordinator David Leach, and Deputy Director Kenneth McKee violated his religious
rights by (1) preventing him from eating an Islamic Halal meal or an appropriate alternative, and
(2) restricting his access to certain religious materials. Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment, arguing that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies against
Defendants Rink, Martin, and Leach with respect to Plaintiff’s first claim, and Plaintiff failed to
exhaust his available administrative remedies against any Defendant with respect to his second
claim. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff did not file a response. Magistrate Judge Maarten Vermaat
submitted a Report and Recommendation (R & R) recommending that the Court grant Defendants’
motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing all claims against Defendants Rink, Martin, and
Leach, and dismissing Plaintiff’s claim regarding restricted access to religious materials against
Defendant McKee. (ECF No. 16.)

Plaintiff has filed an objection to the R & R. (ECF No. 18.) 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 objection, and the pertinent portions
of the record, the Court concludes that the R & R should be adopted.
Plaintiff’s sole objection to the R & R is to the magistrate judge’s conclusion that Plaintiff
“failed to file a grievance relating to restrictions on his access to certain religious books,
publications, and lecture materials,” and “[t]herefore, Plaintiff’s claims regarding these issues are
unexhausted.” (R & R, ECF No. 16 at PageID.193.) Plaintiff argues that the magistrate judge’s
conclusion was not based on any record evidence submitted by Defendants and that, because
Defendants have the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense such as failure to exhaust, the
magistrate judge improperly granted summary judgment to Defendants. However, Plaintiffs fails
to recognize record evidence on this precise issue. Defendants attached as Exhibit B to their
motion for summary judgment an affidavit from MDOC Departmental Analyst Carolyn Nelson,
attesting that the attached Step II grievance report presented a comprehensive list of grievances
that Plaintiff filed through the Step III appeal and included the underlying grievance documents
for the grievances referenced in the report. (ECF No. 10-3.) None of the grievances related to
Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants restricted his access to religious literary materials. Thus, the
Court agrees with the magistrate judge that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative
remedies with respect to that claim.

2

For the reasons stated above, the June 3, 2019, Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 16)
is approved and adopted as the Opinion of the Court. Plaintiff’s objection to the R & R (ECF
No. 18) is overruled. Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 9) is granted.
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Rink, Martin, and Leach are dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant McKee based on an alleged restriction of access to religious
literary materials is also dismissed without prejudice. The remaining claim in this case is against
Defendant McKee for allegedly violating Plaintiff’s religious rights by preventing him from eating
an Islamic Halal meal or an appropriate alternative, in violation of the First Amendment, the
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), and the Fourteenth Amendment
Equal Protection Clause.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 7, 2019

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

3