United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
HONORABLE PAUL L. MALONEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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.)
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).
Identification of Claims
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.
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.
State Law Claims
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
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.
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 brought against the MDOC Defendants are alleged in
Counts I, III, IV, XI, XII, XVI, XVII and XXI. (R&R at 20
PageID.1543.) The magistrate judge recommends dismissing only