United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER ADDRESSING OBJECTIONS TO THREE REPORTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ISSUED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE
F. Cox United States District Court Judge
pro se, on October 13, 2016, Plaintiff Jeffrey Lee
Bonga filed this action against six different defendants.
Defendants one through four, Kenneth Jordan, Victor
Dominguez-Bem, M.D., Kyle Ploehn, P.A., and Margaret
Ouellette, P.A., are with the Lakeland Correctional Facility
(“LCF”). Defendant Badawi Abdellatif, M.D. is
with the Macomb Correctional Facility (“MCF”).
Plaintiff also sued William C. Borgerding, whose location was
matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Anthony Patti for all
pretrial proceedings. (Docket Entry No. 9). The matter
recently came before the magistrate judge on several motions
filed by the parties.
recent order, this Court ruled that Plaintiff had an absolute
right to file the First Amended Complaint he filed on May 26,
2017. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint added SLF
grievance coordinator K. Parsons and SLF Hearings
Investigator L. Scott as Defendants sued in their individual
and official capacities, and corresponding claims for relief
as to those new Defendants.
Magistrate Judge Patti issued three Reports and
Recommendations pertaining to pending motions in this case.
This Order addresses Plaintiff's objections to those
Reports & Recommendations (“R&Rs”).
R&R Recommending That Claims Against Defendant Jordan Be
Dismissed With Prejudice
R&R issued on December 11, 2017 (D.E. No. 71), Magistrate
Judge Patti addressed Defendant Jordan's Motion to
Dismiss. As explained in the R&R, the magistrate judge
concludes that: 1) Plaintiff's claims against Defendant
Jordan are barred by the applicable statute of limitations;
2) the continuing violations doctrine does not preserve
Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Jordan; and 3)
Ellis v. Vadlamudi, 568 F.Supp.2d 7778 (E.D. Mich.
2008) does not help Plaintiff's cause. The magistrate
judge recommends that the Court grant this motion and dismiss
all claims against Defendant Jordan with prejudice.
filed objections to that R&R on January 8, 2018 (D.E. No.
75). In objecting to the R&R, Plaintiff does not contest
that a three-year limitations period applies. Rather,
Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge's conclusion
that his claims against Defendant Jordan accrued at the
latest on May 15, 2013. Plaintiff faults the magistrate judge
for not applying the continuing violations doctrine, in light
of Ellis v. Vadlamudi. In sum, his objections
re-state the arguments he made in opposing Defendant
Jordan responded to the objections (D.E. No. 78), arguing
that the magistrate judge correctly determined that the
continuing violations doctrine does not preserve his claims
against Jordan because “Plaintiff was aware of every
element of his potential claim against Dr. Jordan as of the
last date he had contact with Dr. Jordan, May 13,
2013.” (Id. at 2).
Court concludes that the magistrate judge properly analyzed
these issues and concurs with his conclusion that
Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Jordan are
time-barred. As such, the Court shall adopt this R&R and
shall dismiss the claims against Defendant Jordan with
R&R Recommending That Claims Against The LCF Defendants
Be Dismissed For Failure To Exhaust
R&R issued on December 11, 2017 (D.E. No. 72), Magistrate
Judge Patti addressed the motion for summary judgment filed
by LCF Defendants Dominguez-Bem, Ouellette, and Ploehn. In
that R&R, the magistrate judge recommends that this Court
grant this motion for failure to exhaust claims and dismiss
the claims against these Defendants.
objections to the R&R were due on December 25, 2017. This
Court granted a request by Plaintiff for a 21-day extension
of time to file objections to this R&R. (D.E. No. 77).
But Plaintiff did not draft any objections to this R&R
until February 20, 2018. (D.E. No. 85, Objections filed on
February 26, 2018, that were signed and dated by Plaintiff on
February 20, 2018). As such, Plaintiff's objections to
this R&R are untimely. Moreover, the Court concurs with
the magistrate judge's analysis and conclusions in this
R&R in any event.
the Court shall adopt this R&R and shall dismiss the