United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Honorable Robert J. Jonker Judge.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PHILLIP J. GREEN, United States Magistrate Judge
a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendant is Doctor Robert
Compton. Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from a number of
physical impairments. He alleges that Dr. Compton violated
his rights under the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual
Punishments Clause on March 18, April 7, July 8, 9, and 11,
2016, by denying him medical treatment. (ECF No. 1,
PageID.9). Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and
matter is before the Court on defendant's motion for
summary judgment. (ECF No. 60). Plaintiff opposes
defendants' motion. (ECF No. 79, 80, 86). For the reasons
stated herein, I recommend that defendant's motion be
granted and that judgment be entered in his favor on all
judgment is appropriate when the record reveals that there
are no genuine issues as to any material fact in dispute and
the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); McKay v. Federspiel, 823 F.3d
862, 866 (6th Cir. 2016). The standard for determining
whether summary judgment is appropriate is “whether
‘the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to
require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided
that one party must prevail as a matter of law.' ”
Rocheleau v. Elder Living Const., LLC, 814 F.3d 398,
400 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986)). The Court must
consider all pleadings, depositions, affidavits, and
admissions on file, and draw all justifiable inferences in
favor of the party opposing the motion. See Matsushita
Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,
587 (1986); France v. Lucas, 836 F.3d 612, 624 (6th
the party without the burden of proof seeks summary judgment,
that party bears the initial burden of pointing out to the
district court an absence of evidence to support the
nonmoving party's case, but need not support its motion
with affidavits or other materials “negating” the
opponent's claim. See Morris v. Oldham County Fiscal
Court, 201 F.3d 784, 787 (6th Cir. 2000); see also
Minadeo v. ICI Paints, 398 F.3d 751, 761 (6th Cir.
2005). Once the movant shows that “there is an absence
of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case,
” the nonmoving party has the burden of coming forward
with evidence raising a triable issue of fact. Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). To sustain
this burden, the nonmoving party may not rest on the mere
allegations of his pleadings. See Ellington v. City of E.
Cleveland, 689 F.3d 549, 552 (6th Cir. 2012); see
also Scadden v. Warner, 677 F. App'x 996, 1001 (6th
Cir. 2017). The motion for summary judgment forces the
nonmoving party to present evidence sufficient to create a
genuine issue of fact for trial. Street v. J.C. Bradford
& Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1478 (6th Cir. 1990); see
Newell Rubbermaid, Inc. v. Raymond Corp., 676 F.3d 521,
533 (6th Cir. 2012). “A mere scintilla of evidence is
insufficient; ‘there must be evidence on which a jury
could reasonably find for the [non-movant].' ”
Dominguez v. Corr. Med. Servs., 555 F.3d 543, 549
(6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252);
see Brown v. Battle Creek Police Dep't, 844 F.3d
556, 565 (6th Cir. 2016).
complaint is not properly verified as he has interjected the
limitations that the allegations are made “to the best
of [his] knowledge and belief.” (See ECF No.
1, PageID.9). “[S]tatements made on belief or on
information and belief, cannot be utilized on a
summary-judgment motion.” Ondo v. City of
Cleveland, 795 F.3d 597, 605 (6th Cir. 2015). Thus,
plaintiff's complaint is not a verified complaint that
could be considered as his affidavit in opposition to
defendant's motion. See, e.g., Brown v. City of Grand
Rapids, No. 1:13-cv-964, 2016 WL 4920144, at *3 n.3
(W.D. Mich. June 13, 2016); Naumovski v. Federal
Nat'l Mort. Ass'n, No. 15-11466, 2016 WL 949220,
at *2 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 14, 2016).
arguments and legal conclusions are not evidence. Legal
conclusions, whether asserted in an affidavit or verified
complaint, do not suffice to create a genuine issue of
material fact for trial. See Medison Am. Inc. v.
Preferred Med. Sys., LLC, 357 F. App'x 656, 662 (6th
Cir. 2009); Simmons v. Rogers, No. 1:14-cv-1242,
2017 WL 1179376, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 30, 2017).
“Arguments in parties' briefs are not
evidence.” Duha v. Agrium, Inc., 448 F.3d 867,
879 (6th Cir. 2006).
argument that the Court should disregard all the evidence
that Dr. Crompton filed in support of his motion
(Plaintiff's Brief at 9-12, ECF No. 80, PageID.756-59) is
rejected. Dr. Crompton's affidavit satisfies all the
applicable requirements. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c)(4). The MDOC's medical records need not be
certified. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2).
Plaintiff's characterization of all the medical records
as “forged” (Plaintiff's Brief at 10, ECF No.
80, PageID.757) is delusional.
Findings of Fact
following facts are beyond genuine issue. Plaintiff is an
inmate in the custody of the Michigan Department of
Corrections at the Oaks Correctional Facility (ECF). Robert
Crompton, a licensed physician, has been employed as a
medical doctor at ECF since 2009. Plaintiff arrived at ECF in
February 2016. Dr. Crompton is one of the medical care
providers who treated plaintiff during the period at issue,
March 18, 2016, through July 11, 2016. (Crompton Aff.
¶¶ 1-3, ECF No. 60-1, PageID.529-30).
has a history of refusals of treatment and medication. He has
engaged in drug seeking behavior. He attempts to direct his
own care, generally disagrees with medical professionals, and
would prefer opiate pain medications and that his treatment
and evaluations be conducted at facilities outside the
prison. Because plaintiff is a demanding an argumentative
patient and his objective presentation is often at odds with
his subjective complaints, it ...