United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
HOLMES BELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
August 12, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge Timothy P.
Greeley issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) recommending that Defendants'
motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 45, 49) be granted due
to Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative
remedies. (ECF No. 57.) The matter is before the Court on
Plaintiff's objections to the R&R. (ECF No. 61.)
Court is required to make a de novo determination of those
portions of the R&R to which specific objection has been
made, and 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). “[A] general
objection to a magistrate's report, which fails to
specify the issues of contention, does not satisfy the
requirement that an objection be filed. The objections must
be clear enough to enable the district court to discern those
issues that are dispositive and contentious.”
Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995).
objects to the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that
Plaintiff did not fully exhaust his administrative remedies.
Plaintiff argues that, on October 13, 2014, he completed a
grievance form but the coordinator did not file it or make a
monthly report with the information. (ECF No. 61,
PageID.324.) Plaintiff asserts that his failure to exhaust
administrative remedies is due to the error of the grievance
coordinator. (Id.) Because the coordinator never
filed this grievance, the Magistrate Judge did not consider
it when he evaluated whether the grievances filed by
Plaintiff applied to this case.
prisoner bringing an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must
exhaust all of his available administrative remedies. 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(a). In order to exhaust administrative
remedies, prisoners must complete the administrative review
process in accordance with deadlines and other applicable
procedural rules. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199,
217-19 (2007); see also Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S.
81, 92-91 (2006). MDOC Policy Directive 03.02.130 sets forth
the applicable grievance procedures for prisoners in MDOC
custody at the time relevant to the complaint. A prisoner
must first attempt to resolve a problem orally, within 2
business days of becoming aware of the grievable issue,
unless prevented by circumstances beyond his control. (ECF
No. 45-2, PageID.259, ¶ P.) Plaintiff argues that he was
unable to orally resolve the matter because he cannot speak
or talk, so he was prevented by circumstances beyond his
control. (ECF No. 61, PageID.323.)
resolution is unsuccessful, the prisoner may proceed to Step
I of the grievance process and submit a completed grievance
form within 5 business days of the attempted oral resolution.
(Id.) The prisoner submits the completed grievance
form to a designated grievance coordinator, who logs and
assigns a unique identifying number to each Step I grievance
received. (Id. at PageID.260, ¶¶ V, W.)
Plaintiff argues that he submitted a completed grievance form
to the coordinator, but the coordinator did not file it.
Despite this claim, Plaintiff maintains that he received a
unique identifying number for the grievance.
prisoner is not satisfied with the Step I response, or does
not receive a timely response, he may appeal to Step II by
obtaining an appeal form within 10 business days of the
response, or if no response was received, within 10 days
after the response was due. (Id. at ¶ T.) If
the prisoner is still dissatisfied with the Step II response,
or does not receive a timely Step II response, he may appeal
to Step III using the same appeal form. (Id.) The
Step III form shall be sent within 10 business days after the
date the Step II response was due. (Id.) Plaintiff
does not claim that he filed a Step II or Step III response
for this grievance. To fully exhaust his administrative
remedies, Plaintiff should have appealed to Step II and Step
III, even if he never received a response. Therefore,
Plaintiff has failed to fully exhaust the administrative
remedies for his grievance from October 14, 2013. It is also
unclear whether this grievance named any of the Defendants
and whether it is relevant to the Plaintiff's present
R&R accurately recites the facts and correctly applies
pertinent law. The Court finds the R&R to be
well-reasoned, and Plaintiff's objection is without
merit. For the reasons explained by the R&R, the Court
will grant Defendants' motions for summary judgment (ECF
Nos. 45, 49), and finds that there is no good-faith basis for
an appeal. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Plaintiff's objection to the R&R (ECF No. 61) is
FURTHER ORDERED that the R&R (ECF No. 57) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' motions for summary
judgment (ECF Nos. 45, 49) are GRANTED and this ...