United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OVERRULING PARTIES'
OBJECTIONS (DOCS. 23, 24) AND ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANTS MARK HOLEY AND CINDY OLMSTEAD'S MOTION TO
DISMISS (DOC. 7)
COHN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
a prisoner civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff Mario Madrid, formerly a prison inmate in the
custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC),
filed a civil complaint through counsel, alleging violations
of his First and Eighth Amendment rights by MDOC employees
Glenn King, Mark Holey, and Cindy Olmstead. The matter was
referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial proceedings.
and Holey filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 7). The magistrate
judge issued a report and recommendation (MJRR), recommending
1. The motion be granted as to the Eighth Amendment Claims
against Olmstead and Holey;
2. The motion be granted as to the First Amendment
retaliation claims against Holey;
3. The motion be denied as to the First Amendment retaliation
claims against Olmstead; and
4. The motion be denied as to Olmstead's request for
and plaintiff filed objections (Docs. 23, 24). For the
reasons that follow, the objections will be overruled, the
MJRR will be adopted, and the motion to dismiss will be
granted in part and denied in part.
MJRR accurately sets for the salient allegations in the
complaint which will not be repeated. Briefly, during his
incarceration at the G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility
(JCF), plaintiff was employed by the Michigan Braille
Transcribing Fund (MBTF) as a Braillist certified by the
Library of Congress in Literary and Nemeth transcription. At
the time of the September, 2014 events in question, Olmstead
was the Director of MBTF and Holey was Olmstead's
assistant. Defendant Glenn King (King), an MDOC Corrections
Officer, who worked within the confines of MBTF for security
alleges that King sexually harassed him and other prisoner
employees within the MBTF. When Plaintiff objected to
King's actions, King threatened plaintiff. Plaintiff
complained to Olmstead about King's actions. Eventually,
plaintiff filed a formal complaint against King, alleging
sexual harassment, retaliation, and unjustified move. King
later issued plaintiff a misconduct ticket for being
“Out of Place.” Plaintiff was found guilty of the
misconduct and given three days of loss of privileges. On
rehearing, plaintiff was found not guilty.
later point, Olmstead lifted plaintiff's
“hold” which had previously been put in place to
keep him from being transferred. As a result, plaintiff was
transferred to another facility which resulted in the loss of
his well-paying job as a Braillist. Plaintiff alleges that as
a result of the retaliatory transfer, he lost “highly
lucrative wages while incarcerated” and “a highly
desirable career as a Braillist upon his release” from
prison. Complaint at ¶ 16. Plaintiff later learned that
King was terminated from MDOC employment but was reinstated.
alleges that his complaints against King “resulted in
cruel and unusual conditions of confinement” and that
the “adverse actions” taken against him in
response to his complaints against King would “deter
persons of ordinary firmness from continuing the protected
conduct.” Id. at ¶ 19. He alleges that
Olmstead and Holey failed to ...