United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ANTHONY P. PATTI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
OPINION AND SUSTAINING DEFENDANTS' OBJECTION TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION , AND
GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN United States District Judge.
Giles initiated this action on January 17, 2017. Dkt. No. 1.
On July 5, 2017, he filed an Amended Complaint asserting
claims against the following Defendants: Aramark Correctional
Services Inc.; Michael J. Bouchard, an Oakland County
Sheriff; Curtis Childs, an Oakland County Sheriff; Anna
Dolinski, an Aramark employee; John Doe No. 1, an employee at
the Oakland County Jail; John Doe No. 2, an employee at the
Oakland County Jail. See Dkt. No. 22, pp. 2-3 (Pg. ID
80-81). He raises nine 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims, all
under the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment. See id.
19, 2017, Bouchard, Childs, and the John Doe Defendants
(collectively, “Oakland County Defendants”) filed
a Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. No. 23. Giles has not responded to
Court referred all pretrial matters in this case to
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti, Magistrate Judge Patti
issued a Report and Recommendation on the Motion to Dismiss.
See Dkt. Nos. 7, 28. In his December 18, 2017 Report
and Recommendation, he recommended that the Court dismiss all
of Plaintiff's claims, except for Plaintiff's
retaliatory prosecution claim. Dkt. No. 28, pp. 15-17 (Pg. ID
149-51). He urged the Court to permit the retaliatory
prosecution claim to proceed in this action. See id.
January 2, 2018, the Oakland County Defendants timely
objected to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation on the
retaliatory prosecution claim. Dkt. No. 30. There were no
other objections to the Report and Recommendation.
before the Court is the Oakland County Defendants'
Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation regarding Plaintiff's retaliatory
prosecution claim . The Court will find that Giles has
not adequately alleged a retaliatory prosecution claim.
Accordingly, the Court will SUSTAIN the Oakland County
Defendants' Objection to the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation. Dkt. No. 30. As the Court agrees
with Magistrate Judge Patti regarding dismissal of
Plaintiff's other counts, dismissal of the retaliatory
prosecution claim means that the Oakland County Defendants
will prevail on their Motion to Dismiss.
matter relates to Giles's detainment at the Oakland
County Jail in Pontiac, Michigan. Dkt. No. 22, pp. 1-2 (Pg.
ID 79-80). Giles's issues with this confinement include
lack of exercise opportunities, inadequate access to the law
library, quality (or rather, lack thereof) of meals served,
absence of beds thereby forcing him to sleep on the floor,
and assignment to “intake tanks.” Id. at
p. 4 (Pg. ID 82). Plaintiff, in particular, protests
assignment to the intake tanks. Id. He asserts they
were unsanitary, overcrowded, and allowed for minimal
opportunity to leave the area. Id. at pp. 5-6 (Pg.
ID 83-84). According to Giles, detainees could only leave the
tanks once each day; and even then, it was only for five
minutes to take a shower. Id. at p. 6 (Pg. ID 84).
at the Oakland County Jail, Giles submitted to deputy
sheriffs numerous grievances regarding the conditions of his
confinement. Id. at pp. 3-4 (Pg. ID 81-82). He
claims the grievance procedure involved him handing a form to
the deputy sheriff assigned to his section of the jail.
Id. at p. 3 (Pg. ID 81). In addition to these
written complaints, he also verbally expressed his discontent
to deputy sheriffs. Id.
contends deputy sheriffs retaliated against him because of
his protests, and in doing so, assigned him to the intake
tanks. Id. at 5 (Pg. ID 83). He also maintains that
on his grievance forms, he always requested an appeal, which
meant review by a captain. Id. at 4 (Pg. ID 82). The
deputy sheriffs, however, rarely marked his grievance form
accordingly, so few appeals of his complaints were heard.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a court to
assess whether a plaintiff has stated a claim upon which
relief may be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only
‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief, ' in order to
‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim
is and the grounds upon which it rests.' ” Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)
(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).
“[E]ven though the complaint need not contain
‘detailed' factual allegations, its ‘factual
allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above
the speculative level on the ...