United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
L. MALONEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Robert Boles, a prisoner under the control of the Michigan
Department of Corrections (MDOC), filed this § 1983
claim against several defendants raising claims related to
the food and food services provided. Defendants filed a
motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 87.) The magistrate
judge issued a report recommending the motion be granted.
(ECF No. 108.) Boles filed objections. (ECF No. 113.)
Defendants filed responses. (ECF No. 114.)
being served with a report and recommendation (R&R)
issued by a magistrate judge, a party has fourteen days to
file written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b). A district court judge reviews de novo the portions of
the R&R to which objections have been filed. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Only 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) (per curiam) (holding the district court need not
provide de novo review where the objections are frivolous,
conclusive or too general because the burden is on the
parties to Apinpoint those portions of the magistrate's
report that the district court must specifically
Issues in Grievance 14-05-0572-09
grievance was filed on May 7, 2014, and raises an incident
that occurred on May 4, 5, and 6. (ECF No. 87-3 PageID.893.)
The magistrate judge found that the issue grieved was that
Boles was served a meal on a dirty food tray. (R&R
PageID.1289.) The magistrate judge then concluded that
receiving food on a dirty tray does not amount to a violation
of one's constitutional rights under the Eighth
objections. He argues that he grieved the failure to place
appropriate food in low sodium diet trays, a violation of the
therapeutic diet policy, which caused him to be hospitalized.
does not object to the conclusion that serving food on a
dirty tray does not amount to a violation of one's rights
under the Eighth Amendment.
objection #1 is overruled. The relevant documents appear at
ECF No. 87-3, PageID.891-93. The magistrate judge's
conclusions about the document are correct. Although Boles
did discuss the “on-going problem” about serving
inappropriate food, the issue he addressed with the staff
before filing this grievance was the cleanliness of the
trays. As Boles completed the grievance form, the date of the
incident was May 6. In the paragraph description of the
incident, Boles states that on May 4, 5, at 6 the diet trays
were dirty and that he spoke with “Coffrin, ” an
individual not named as a defendant, who suggested he file a
Issues in Grievance 14-06-0682-09
grievance was filed on June 5, 2014, and complains about
events occurring between June 1 and June 5. (ECF No. 87-3
PageID.890.) The magistrate judge found that the issue raised
in the grievance was that Boles was not provided a low-sodium
diet. (R&R PageID.1289.) The matter was administrative
exhausted as to Defendants Watts, Finley, Lamp and Hand.
(Id.) The magistrate judge concludes the claim, as
one arising under the Eighth Amendment, should be dismissed
because Boles has not presented any evidence to support the
subjective prong; he has no evidence that any of these four
defendants were aware he had been prescribed a low-sodium
diet. (Id. PageID.1293.) The magistrate judge also
concluded that the claim should be dismissed because Boles
has not alleged any unconstitutional acts, as opposed to
inaction, by Defendants Watts, Finley, Lamp and Hand.
objections. Boles argues he has presented evidence to support
the subjective prong of an Eighth Amendment claim relating to
his low-sodium diet for Defendant Hand.
does not object to the conclusion that he has not presented
evidence to support the subjective prong for an Eighth
Amendment claim related to a prescribed ...