United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (document no. 78), ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (document no. 75), GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS (document nos. 29, 66), AND DENYING JARRETT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (document no. 44)
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III, District Judge.
On January 27, 2014, Clarence Jarrett, an inmate in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections ("MDOC"), filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against MDOC, Corizon Healthcare (an MDOC contractor that provides medical care to inmates), and numerous prison personnel, including doctors, nurses, and administrative officials. Jarrett alleges Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
All pre-trial matters were referred to Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. Before the Court is a motion to dismiss by Defendants MDOC, Heather Bailey, Joshua Schad, and Richard Russell, ECF No. 29, a motion to dismiss by Defendants Nikole McLean, Laura Kinder, and Subrina Aiken, ECF No. 66, and a motion for summary judgment by Jarrett, ECF No. 44. The motions have been fully briefed. On October 15, 2014, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report"), recommending the Court grant Defendants' motions to dismiss and deny Jarrett's motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 75. Jarrett timely filed objections. ECF No. 78.
Civil Rule 72(b) governs review of a magistrate judge's report. De novo review of a magistrate judge's findings is only required if the parties "serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Nevertheless, as a district judge always retains jurisdiction over a motion after referring it to a magistrate judge, a district judge is entitled to review the magistrate judge's findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154 (1985) (clarifying that while a district court judge need not review a report and recommendation " de novo if no objections are filed, it does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard"). After examining the record and considering Jarrett's objections de novo, the Court concludes that his arguments do not have merit. Accordingly, the Court will overrule Jarrett's objections, adopt the magistrate judge's Report, grant Defendants' motions to dismiss, and deny Jarrett's motion for summary judgment.
The magistrate judge's Report succinctly details the events giving rise to Jarrett's action against the defendants. Report and Recommendation 1-3, ECF No. 75. In the interest of brevity, the Court will adopt that portion of the Report.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
I. Motion To Dismiss
Civil Rule 12(b)(6) provides for dismissal of a complaint "for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). In assessing a motion to dismiss, the Court must presume all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint to be true and draw all reasonable inferences from those allegations in favor of the non-moving party. Bishop v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 520 F.3d 516, 519 (6th Cir. 2008). To determine whether the plaintiff has stated a claim, the Court will examine the complaint and any written instruments that are attached as exhibits to the pleading. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) & 10(c). The Court will not presume the truthfulness of any legal conclusion, opinion, or deduction, even if it is couched as a factual allegation.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require the claimant to put forth only "enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of [the elements of the claim]." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. Thus, although "a complaint need not contain detailed' factual allegations, its [f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true.'" Ass'n of Cleveland Fire Fighters v. Cleveland, Ohio, 502 F.3d 545, 548 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Therefore, the Court will grant a motion for dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) only in cases where there are simply not "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
II. Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is warranted "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A fact is "material" for purposes of summary judgment if proof of that fact would establish or refute an essential element of the cause of action or defense. Kendall v. Hoover Co., 751 F.2d 171, 174 (6th Cir. 1984). A dispute over material facts is "genuine" "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
In considering a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view the facts and draw all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. 60 Ivy St. Corp. v. Alexander, 822 F.2d 1432, 1435 (6th Cir. 1987). The Court must take care, in evaluating the motion, not to make judgments on the quality of the evidence, because the purpose of summary judgment is to determine whether a triable claim exists. Doe v. Metro. Nashville Pub. Schs., ...