Williams et al v. Weatherford et al

Filing 157

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The court has reviewed the R & R, the objections, the response to objections, and the file. The plaintiffs' objections are overruled, and the R & R is adopted and approved. Accordingly, the defendants' motion f or summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff Quintanilla's claims (Docket Entry No. 65) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff Quintanilla's claims are DISMISSED. Any appeal brought by Plaintiff Quintanilla would not be in good faith for the purpose of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 5/25/2017. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail. ) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(jw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
JUSTIN LEE WILLIAMS #101391,
And GIOVANNI QUINTANILLA #91582,
Plaintiff,
v.
SONNY WEATHERFORD, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 3:16-cv-02797
JUDGE TRAUGER

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the court are a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of the Magistrate
Judge that summary judgment be granted to the defendants on Plaintiff Quintanilla’s claim due
to his failure to exhaust administrative remedies (Docket Entry No. 129), objections filed by the
plaintiffs (Docket Entry No. 141), and the defendants’ response to the objections (Docket Entry
No. 146).
When a magistrate judge issues an R & R regarding a dispositive matter, the district
court must review de novo any portion of the report and recommendation to which a specific
objection is made, and “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); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir. 2001);
Massey v. City of Ferndale, 7 F.3d 506, 510 (6th Cir. 1993). Federal courts have routinely
deemed objections “waived” where the objections merely restate the party’s arguments that
were previously addressed by the magistrate judge. See VanDiver v. Martin, 304 F.Supp.2d
934, 937 (E.D. Mich. 2004) (“An ‘objection’ that does nothing more than state a disagreement
with a magistrate’s suggested resolution, or simply summarizes what has been presented
before, is not an ‘objection’ as that term is used in this context.”); see also Charles v. Astrue,
No. 3:10–cv–134, 2011 WL 3206464 (E.D. Tenn. July 28, 2011).

The R & R indicates that the defendants have submitted proof that Plaintiff Quintanilla
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies about the jail’s mail policy before filing this lawsuit,
and that the plaintiffs have failed to submit any proof that creates a genuine issue about that
fact. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge observed that Defendant Troutt’s affidavit in support of
the motion for summary judgment, and the twenty page electronic report of Plaintiff Quintanilla’s
grievances attached to it, establish that Mr. Quintanilla was familiar with the use of the
grievance system and that he did not file any grievance about the jail mail procedure that is the
subject of this lawsuit. (ECF No. 129, at 5; ECF Nos. 65-1, 65-2.) In response to the motion for
summary judgment, the Magistrate Judge correctly found that “the closest the Plaintiff comes to
responding to this issue is the statement ‘both the plaintiffs in this action submitted written
grievances to both of the defendants regarding the infringement upon our rights with no
response received’ and ‘several verbal complaints were also given to higher-ranking jail
officials.’” (ECF No. 129, at 5 (quoting ECF No. 98, at 1).) The Magistrate Judge pointed out
that the plaintiffs had not submitted a copy of any such grievance, describe its substance, or
stated to whom any verbal complaints were made, and that they had failed to respond to the
defendants’ statement of undisputed fact that Plaintiff Quintanilla had not filed any grievance
about the mail system at the Sumner County Jail. (ECF No. 129, at 5–6.)
The plaintiffs object on two grounds. First, they say they did not receive the defendants’
statement of undisputed facts until March 16, 2017, two days after the R & R was entered. (ECF
No. 141, at 1.) But the certificate of service on the defendants’ statement indicates that it was
mailed on January 31, simultaneously with the motion to dismiss and memorandum in support
to which the defendants responded on February 21, and the defendants have now submitted
counsel’s January 31 cover letter reflecting that all of the defendants’ filings in support of their
motion were mailed to each plaintiff in a single missive. (ECF No. 67, at 2; ECF No. 146-1.) The
court is therefore not persuaded by the plaintiffs’ claim that they did not receive the defendants’
statement until a month and a half after it was mailed to them. Moreover, even if the court were
-2-

so persuaded, the R & R was not based solely on the plaintiffs’ failure to respond to that
statement, but is amply supported by Defendant Troutt’s affidavit and the plaintiffs’ failure to
offer any evidence to refute it in their response to the motion.
Second, the plaintiffs argue generally that summary judgment is inappropriate because
they have not yet conducted discovery. (ECF No. 141, at 3.)

However, they have not

established why any discovery would be necessary for them to submit evidence of Plaintiff
Quintanilla’s own grievances, or why Defendant Troutt’s affidavit and the attached records of
Mr. Quintanilla’s grievances is not adequate disclosure of the evidence in the defendants’
possession on this issue. They also fail to specify to any degree what discovery they would like
to conduct regarding exhaustion. A court does not abuse its discretion by denying a request to
defer ruling on summary judgment until additional discovery is conducted where the requesting
party fails to show how he would benefit from such discovery. Anzaldua v. Ne. Ambulance &
Fire Prot. Dist., 793 F.3d 822, 837 (8th Cir. 2015).
The court has reviewed the R & R, the objections, the response to objections, and the
file.

The plaintiffs’ objections are overruled, and the R & R is adopted and approved.

Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff Quintanilla’s
claims (Docket Entry No. 65) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff Quintanilla’s claims are DISMISSED.
Any appeal brought by Plaintiff Quintanilla would not be in good faith for the purpose of 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
It is so ORDERED.

Aleta A. Trauger
United States District Judge

-3-