United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division
Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS, ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS, DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS, AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT
L. LUDINGTON United States District Judge
Randy Stradley, an inmate representing himself pro se, filed
a complaint on April 29, 2016. ECF No. 1. In the complaint,
he alleges that, while incarcerated at the Kinross
Correctional Facility, he was denied adequate medical care.
Defendant Daniel Heyns, the director of the Michigan
Department of Corrections, was summarily dismissed on August
10, 2016, because Stradley did not allege in his complaint
that Heyns was involved in the allegedly unconstitutional
conduct. ECF No. 6. All pretrial matters were then referred
to Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris. ECF No. 8. On
September 21, 2016, Defendants Corizon Health Care Provider
and Vindhya Jawardena filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 14.
On November 15, 2016, Judge Morris directed Stradley to file
an amended complaint. ECF No. 22. He filed the amended
complaint on December 9, 2016. ECF No. 24. On February 2,
2017, Judge Morris issued a report recommending that the
motion to dismiss be granted. ECF No. 34. Stradley filed
objections to the report and recommendation. ECF No.
Defendants Sekou and Campbell have since filed motions to
dismiss as well. See ECF Nos. 37, 53. On June 26,
2017, Stradley filed a motion for an extension of time to
file a response to the most recent motion to dismiss. ECF No.
reasons stated below, Stradley's objections will be
overruled and the report and recommendation will be adopted.
Because the issues raised in the present motion to dismiss
demonstrate that Stradley has failed to state a claim against
any Defendant, the suit will be summarily dismissed pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). All other pending
motions will be denied as moot.
one exception, Stradley does not object to Judge Morris's
summary of the factual allegations contained in his amended
complaint. For clarity, those allegations will be briefly
summarized and Stradley's factual objection will be
claims arise out of physical injuries he sustained in an
altercation with his cellmate, Michael Jackson, on February
22, 2012. Am. Compl. at 4. Stradley lost consciousness during
the attack and was transported to the medical department.
Id. After a cursory examination, the nurses released
Stradley despite the extreme pain he was suffering.
Id. Later that day, Stradley was transported to
Detroit Medical Center and received treatment by a Dr. Atas.
Dr. Atas observed that Stradley had sustained significant
trauma to his face, especially his left eye. Id. at
5. Stradley was placed on medication and “was advised
if [at] any point [he] develops and [sic] newer symptoms,
return to the emergency room.” Id.
February 29, 2012, Stradley's left eye was still swollen
shut as a result of broken facial bones. Id. at 6.
He was still suffering extreme pain. On March 1, 2012, the
prison medical department received discharge paper work from
the Detroit Medical Center which confirmed that Stradley had
suffered several fractures and which recommended
“followup once edema [swelling] subsides.”
March 20, 2012, one prison nurse scheduled Stradley for a
sick call at the Detroit Medical Center because Stradley was
still complaining of broken bones, headaches, and teeth pain.
Id. But Nurse Sekou refused to allow the follow-up
treatment, suggesting that the treatment would be denied due
to costs. Id. at 7. Stradley contends that
Defendants thus ignored clear instructions from the Detroit
Medical Center to “immediately return patient when new
problems occur.” Id. On March 30, 2012,
Stradley was still suffering, but Dr. Jayawardena ignored his
complaints. Id. Similarly, Stradley complained of
pain on the left side of his face and top row of teeth on
August 2, 2012. Rather than transporting him to the Detroit
Medical Center, Dr. Todd gave Stradley a few packets of
2014, the Michigan Department of Corrections finally sent
Stradley to an offsite oral surgeon. On November 11, 2014,
Stradley was diagnosed with “a depressed infra orbital
maxillar fracture which may have caused some impingement on
the infra orbital nerve and/or one of the maxillar branches.
. . . However, at this point, because of the long delay in
healing, a nerve decompression procedure would be
questionable.” Id. at 8-9. (internal citations
omitted). The oral surgeon performed “post-neurectomy
of the inferior orbital canal on the left side of
Plaintiff's face.” Id. at 9. In other
words, one of Stradley's facial nerves was removed.
Currently, Stradley suffers from Chronic Obstructive
Pulmonary Disease, which he believes is traceable to the
damage done to his left sinus cavity during the physical
altercation. The damage also interferes with his ability to
talk coherently. Id. at 10. Stradley further alleges
that the “removal of the nerve caused the left side
upper gum to be nub [sic] all the time.” Id.
is suing the Corizon Health Care Provider (which employed the
oral surgeon who removed his nerve in April 2015), Dr.
Jawardena, Dr. Todd, P.A. Campbell, and Nurse Sekou. All of
the individual defendants are affiliated with the Michigan
Department of Corrections. The allegations in Stradley's
amended complaint which name the individual Defendants all
occurred in 2012. Campbell's last alleged interaction
with Stradley took place in February 2012. Id. at 6.
Sekou last interacted with Stradley in March 2012.
Id. at 7. Jayawardena last treated Stradley on March
30, 2012. Id. And Dr. Todd's last examination of
Stradley occurred on August 2, 2012.
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, a party may object to
and seek review of a magistrate judge's report and
recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
Objections must be stated with specificity. Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 151 (1985) (citation omitted). If
objections are made, “[t]he district judge must
determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's
disposition that has been properly objected to.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). De novo review requires at least a
review of the evidence before the magistrate judge; the Court
may not act solely on the basis of a magistrate judge's
report and recommendation. See Hill v. Duriron Co.,
656 F.2d 1208, 1215 (6th Cir. 1981). After reviewing the
evidence, the Court is free to accept, reject, or modify the
findings or recommendations of the magistrate judge. See
Lardie v. Birkett, 221 F.Supp.2d 806, 807 (E.D. Mich.
those objections that are specific are entitled to a de novo
review under the statute. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d
636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986). “The parties have the duty to
pinpoint those portions of the magistrate's report that
the district court must specially consider.”
Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
A general objection, or one that merely restates the
arguments previously presented, does not sufficiently
identify alleged errors on the part of the magistrate judge.
See VanDiver v. Martin, 304 F.Supp.2d 934, 937 (E.D.
Mich. 2004). An “objection” that does nothing
more than disagree with a magistrate judge's
determination, “without explaining the source of the
error, ” is not considered a valid objection.
Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932
F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). Without specific objections,
“[t]he functions of the district court are ...