Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sedore v. Burt

United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division

April 16, 2018

Scott Sedore, Plaintiff,
v.
Sherry Burt, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          HONORABLE PAUL L. MALONEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff Scott Sedore is a prisoner under the control of the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC). His handwritten complaint names eight defendants and contains more than twenty claims. Five defendants, Corizon Inc., Barbara Bien, Suzanne Howard, John Decker, and Richard Worel (Corizon Defendants) filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 39.) The three other defendants, Sherry Burt, Tamerla Hamilton, and Michael Wilkinson (MDOC Defendants) filed a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 46.) The magistrate judge issued a report recommending both motions be granted in part and denied in part. (ECF No. 85.) Sedore filed objections. (ECF No. 86.) And, MDOC Defendants filed objections. (ECF No. 90.)

         I.

         After being served with a report and recommendation (R&R) issued by a magistrate judge, a party has fourteen days to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). A district court judge reviews de novo the portions of the R&R to which objections have been filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Only those objections that are specific are entitled to a de novo review under the statute. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (per curiam).

         II.

         A. Identification of Claims

         To prepare the R&R, the magistrate judge reviewed Plaintiffs complaint, a "lengthy and disjointed narrative." (R&R at 2 PagelD. 1525.) The R&R sets forth a timeline of events giving rise to Plaintiffs claims. (Id. at 3-5 PagelD. 1526-28.) The magistrate judge then construed the complaint as raising twenty-one different federal claims or counts. (Id. at 6-8 PagelD. 1529-31.) As part of the R&R, the magistrate judge recommends the Court construe the complaint as raising only those twenty-one claims or counts.

         This recommendation will be adopted. No party has objected this identification of counts provided in the R&R. Plaintiff has not objected by asserting that his complaint raised additional counts or that the R&R misconstrued any particular counts. Defendants have not objected by arguing that the R&R identified counts not pled in the complaint.

         B. State Law Claims

         In addition to the twenty-one federal claims or counts, the magistrate judge identified four additional claims or counts brought under state law. (R&R at 25 PagelD. 1548.) The magistrate judge recommends the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs allegations that defendants (1) violated the Hippocratic Oath, (2) violated MDOC policies and procedures, (3) violated MDOC and civil service employee work rules, and (4) failed to apply Michigan's no-fault insurance laws relevant to his medical treatment.

         Plaintiff objects (6th Objection). Plaintiff argues the issued are inextricable intertwined with the violations of his civil rights. Plaintiff also argues Defendants were acting under color of law when they violated these various obligations.

         Plaintiffs objection is overruled and this recommendation will be adopted. Section 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provides a cause of action for individuals who have been deprived of "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" by a person acting under color of law. The statute covers "deprivations of federal statutory and constitutional rights. It does not cover official conduct that allegedly violates state law." Huron Valley Hosp., Inc. v. City of Pontiac, 887 F.2d 710, 714 (6th Cir. 1989). A federal district court may choose to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over alleged violations of state law when those claims are so related to the federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. A district court has broad discretion when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. Gamel v. City of Cincinnati, 625 F.3d 949, 951 (6th Cir. 2010). Here, the parties and the Court have not yet invested significant time or resources in this litigation. Although some of factual issues may overlap, the proofs necessary for Plaintiffs state law claims would include facts and legal issues not necessary to resolve Plaintiffs federal claims.

         C. Exhaustion

         The claims brought against the MDOC Defendants are alleged in Counts I, III, IV, XI, XII, XVI, XVII and XXI.[1] (R&R at 20 PageID.1543.) The magistrate judge recommends dismissing only ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.