United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
DAVID RHINEHART and LEWIS RHINEHART, Joint Personal Representatives of the Estate of KENNETH RHINEHART, deceased, Plaintiffs,
ADAM EDELMAN and VERNON STEVENSON, Defendants.
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
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).
object to the Report on four grounds. The Court ...