Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rhinehart v. Edelman

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

December 13, 2016

DAVID RHINEHART and LEWIS RHINEHART, Joint Personal Representatives of the Estate of KENNETH RHINEHART, deceased, Plaintiffs,
v.
ADAM EDELMAN and VERNON STEVENSON, Defendants.

          ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS (DOCUMENT NO. 274), ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOCUMENT NO. 273), AND DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOCUMENT NO. 258)

          STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III United States District Judge.

         Kenneth Rhinehart was a prisoner in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections. In March 2011, he filed the present action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that medical providers denied him necessary medical treatments. He died in 2013 while still in custody and an amended complaint was filed on behalf of his estate. Am. Compl., ECF No. 175. In September 2013, the Court referred all pretrial matters to Magistrate Judge Paul J. Komives. Order, ECF No. 160. The case was then reassigned to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford in January 2015.

         The Court previously dismissed some of Rhinehart's original claims and now, only Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Adam Edelman and Vernon Stevenson remain. The defendants moved for summary judgment and the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report") suggesting the Court deny the motion. ECF No. 273. The Court will adopt the Report's findings and deny the Defendants' motion.

         BACKGROUND

         The Report properly details the events giving rise to Rhinehart's action against the Defendants. Report 2-21, ECF No. 273. The Court will adopt that portion of the Report.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Civil Rule 72(b) governs the review of a magistrate judge's report. A district court's standard of review depends upon whether a party files objections. The Court need not undertake any review of portions of a Report to which no party has objected. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). De novo review is required, however, if the parties "serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). In conducting a de novo review, "[t]he district judge 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)(3).

         Civil Rule 56(c) provides that summary judgment should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show "that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of an essential element of the nonmoving party's case on which the nonmoving party would bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Martin v. Ohio Turnpike Comm'n, 968 F.2d 606, 608 (6th Cir.1992).

         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 is not required or permitted, however, to judge the evidence or make findings of fact. Id. at 1435-36.

         The moving party has the burden of showing conclusively that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Id. at 1435. A fact is "material" for the purposes of summary judgment if proof of that fact would have the effect of establishing or refuting an essential element of the cause of action or a defense advanced by the parties. Kendall v. Hoover Co., 751 F.2d 171, 174 (6th Cir. 1984). A dispute over a material fact 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). Accordingly, when a reasonable jury could not find that the nonmoving party is entitled to a verdict, there is no genuine issue for trial and summary judgment is appropriate. Feliciano v. City of Cleveland, 988 F.2d 649, 654 (6th Cir. 1993).

         DISCUSSION

         Defendants object to the Report on four grounds. The Court ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.