United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
HOLMES BELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. On October 26, 2016, United States
Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the
motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Priesk, Ogle,
Johnson, Holman, and Schroderus for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies (ECF No. 14) be granted. (ECF No.
17.) The matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's
objections to the R&R. (ECF No. 18.)
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).
objected to the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that he did
not fully exhaust his administrative remedies. Plaintiff
argues that he listed Defendants Ogle, Johnson, Holman, and
Schroderus in Step II and Step III of his grievance. He
explains that he exhausted administrative remedies as best he
could, and he did not include Defendants Ogle, Johnson,
Holman, and Schroderus in Step I because he could not name
them. He also argues that the jail did not process an
additional grievance that he filed. In his objection, he
further asserts that Defendant Stenglein refused to check the
log book or video to see who was working.
Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) policy
“[does] not contain any provision specifying who must
be named in a grievance.” Jones v. Bock, 549
U.S. 199, 218 (2007). Rather, it requires “only that
prisoners be as specific as possible in their
grievances[.]” Id. Thus, “exhaustion is
not per se inadequate simply because an individual
later sued was not named in the grievances.”
Id. at 219.
Plaintiff did not identify any officer by name in his Step I
grievance. In his Step II grievance, Plaintiff identified
Defendants Stenglein, Ogle, Johnson, Holman, and Schroderus.
(ECF No. 15-3, PageID.136-37.) On Step II appeal, the warden
reviewed Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Stenglien,
but noted that “[a]ny additional issues will not be
addressed during Step II appeal in accordance with
PD-3.02.130 Prisoner Parolee Grievances.” (ECF No.
15-3, PageID.137.) This decision was upheld at Step III. The
only issue that Plaintiff raised at Step I was that an
officer refused to serve him a Ramadan food tray. At Step II,
Plaintiff raised additional issues that Defendants Schroderus
and Holman crossed Plaintiff's name off of the Ramadan
list, and that Defendants Ogle and Johnson lied to him and
refused to give him food. Even though Plaintiff is not
required to name each Defendant in his Step I grievance, he
cannot add new issues at Step II under MDOC Policy.
Therefore, Plaintiff's objection is without merit. For
the same reason, his objection that he did not list
Defendants Ogle, Johnson, Holman, and Schroderus in Step I
because he could not name them is also without merit.
also contends that he wrote another grievance, which the jail
did not process. Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants'
motion for summary judgment nor has he alleged or provided
any support for this claim. When a motion for summary
judgment is filed, the Court must draw all justifiable
inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Martin v.
Cincinnati Gas & Elec. Co., 561 F.3d 439, 443 (6th
Cir. 2009) (citing Jones v. Potter, 488 F.3d 397,
403 (6th Cir. 2007)). Nonetheless, a “plaintiff must do
more than rely merely on the allegations of her pleadings or
identify a ‘metaphysical doubt' or hypothetical
‘plausibility' based on a lack of evidence; [a
plaintiff] is obliged to come forward with ‘specific
facts, ' based on ‘discovery and disclosure
materials on file, and any affidavits[.]'”
Chappell v. City of Cleveland, 585 F.3d 901, 912
(6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c);
Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586-87). Although an
administrative procedure is unavailable when “it
operates as a simple dead end--with officers unable or
consistently unwilling to provide any relief to aggrieved
inmates, ” Ross v. Blake, 136 S.Ct. 1850, 1859
(2016), Plaintiff has not provided the Court with any
specific facts to support this claim. Therefore, his
conclusory claim that the jail did not process an additional
grievance is insufficient to overcome Defendants' motion
for summary judgment.
Stenglein did not join the motion for summary judgment, and
the Magistrate Judge did not review any of the claims against
Defendant Stenglein. Therefore, Plaintiff's objection
with respect to Defendant Stenglein is without merit.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's
objections to the R&R (ECF No. 18) are OVERRULED.
FURTHER ORDERED that the R&R (ECF No. 17) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED, and Defendants Priesk,