United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Nathaniel K. Owusu, Plaintiff,
Michigan Department of Corrections Pain Management Committee, Corizon Health, Inc., William C. Borgerding, Keith Papendick, Craig Hutchinson, Timothy Kangas, Teri Byrne, Corey Grahn, Bryan D. Buller, Teresa Merling, Michael A. Millette, Susan N. Wilson, Danielle M. Paquette, Brown, Heather Haapala, Oliver L. Johnston, and Connie D. Lester, Defendants.
K. Majzoub Mag. Judge.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
E. LEVY United States District Judge.
September 5, 2017, Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub issued a
Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 95) that recommended the
Court: deny the Corizon defendants' (Corizon Health,
Inc., Papendick, Hutchinson, Buller, Grahn, Wilson, and
Paquette) motion to dismiss
37), grant the Michigan Department of Corrections
(“MDOC”) defendants' (MDOC Pain Management
Committee, Kangas, Byrne, Merling, Brown, Haapala, and
Lester) motion to sever (Dkt. 60) as to Claims VIII and XI of
the complaint and deny it as to all other claims, deny
plaintiff Nathaiel K. Owusu's motion for default judgment
(Dkt. 66) and motion to strike (Dkt. 69), and deny as moot
the MDOC defendants' motion for a protective order. (Dkt.
pending are the Corizon defendants' motion for leave to
file an untimely reply in support of their objections (Dkt.
114), and plaintiff's motion to strike the motion for
leave to file an untimely reply. (Dkt. 116.)
parties do not object to the factual background set forth in
the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. 95 at 3-4.) Accordingly,
the Court adopts that background in its analysis.
Magistrate Judge issues a Report and Recommendation,
“[w]ithin fourteen days after being served with a copy,
any party may serve and file written objections to such
proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of
court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence
or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C);
has filed a single objection: that the Report and
Recommendation erred in severing Claims VIII and XI asserted
against defendants Kangas, Haapala, and Lester. (Dkt. 100.)
Corizon defendants have filed three objections: (1) the
Magistrate Judge erred in concluding that plaintiff's
claims were not barred by res judicata; (2) the
Magistrate Judge erred in concluding that plaintiff stated a
claim for civil conspiracy; and (3) the Magistrate Judge
erred in holding that Corizon Health and the Michigan
Department of Corrections are not the same entity. (Dkt. 98.)
Motion to File an Untimely Reply
reply regarding their objections was filed on December 6,
2017, in their motion seeking leave to file the reply. (Dkt.
114.) The reply was due on or before October 2, 2017.
Defendants' only reason for filing the reply over two
months late was “an inadvertent error or
oversight.” (Id. at 2.) Defendants are
represented by experienced counsel, and fail to offer any
reason why the Court should excuse a two-month delay in
filing their reply, particularly when these same defendants
filed a motion for the Court to sanction plaintiff on October
17, 2017 (Dkt. 109), and a reply in support of that motion on
November 13, 2017 (Dkt. 113), which shows that defendants and
their counsel were paying attention to this matter several
weeks before they realized their reply was untimely. The
Court will deny defendants' motion for leave to file
their untimely reply, and deny plaintiff's motion to
strike defendants' motion for leave (Dkt. 116) as moot.
The Magistrate Judge Did Not Err in Granting The Motion to
Sever as to Kangas, Haapala, and Lester
objects that Claim VIII, in which he alleges that Kangas
retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment
right to use his legal name and have that name reflected in
his medical records (Dkt. 1 at 101-109), and Claim XI, in
which he alleges that Haapala and Lester denied him access to
his medical records. (Dkt. 1-1 at 28-38.) Plaintiff argues
that these claims arose out of the same transactions or
occurrences as his medical care claims, which make up the
bulk of his complaint.
majority of plaintiff's complaint concerns a conspiracy
between the defendants to deny him necessary medical care
from 2010 through the filing of the lawsuit. (Dkt. 1 at 8.)
Claims VIII and XI do not concern this conspiracy, but
instead other discrete acts governed by different legal
standards from plaintiff's denial-of-care claims that
occurred during the period in which plaintiff alleges that he
was also denied medical care. As the Magistrate Judge
correctly stated in her analysis, claims that involve
distinct factual scenarios, different time periods, and
different legal standards should be severed from a ...