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.

McDuff v. Addis

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

July 3, 2018

Richard Hannable McDuff, Plaintiff,
v.
Brent Addis, et al., Defendants.

          OPINION

          Paul L. Maloney United States District Judge.

         I. Background

         State prisoner Richard McDuff filed suit under § 1983, claiming that Defendants Brent Addis, Jared Goodstrey, Shakia Davis, and Robert Dykstra were deliberately indifferent to the risk that he would be assaulted by other inmates.

         Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment for Plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. The magistrate judge issued an R & R recommending that the motion be granted. The matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff's objections to the R & R.

         The focus of the motion for summary judgment, the R & R, and Plaintiff's objections is Grievance No. MCF-2015-04-326-28C:

MCF ADMINISTRATION HAS SHOWN WILLFUL AND DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE TO MY LIFE AND PHYSICAL SAFETY. AFTER BEING ATTACKED BY TWO KNOWN GANG MEMBERS IN 4 UNIT BATHROOM WITH WEAPONS, MCF ADMINISTRATION NEVER QUESTIONED ME REGARDING MY SAFETY CONCERNS DESPITE THE FOLLOWING UNDISPUTED FACTS: 1) 4 UNIT CAMERAS SHOW ME ENTERING ITS UPSTAIRS BATHROOM WEARING FLIP FLOP SANDALS WHERE TWO KNOWN GANG MEMBERS RAN IN BEHIND ME THEN SWIFTLY LATER RAN OUT. 2) THE NOISE OF THE ATTACK BROUGHT
OFFICER DYKSTRA RUNNING TO THE BATHROOM WHERE HE FOUND ME ALONE AND BLEEDING. 3) HE IDENTIFIED THE TWO GANG MEMBERS VIA VIDEO AND NO OTHER PERSONS HAVING BEEN IN THE AREA. UPON MY BEING TAKEN TO HEALTH CARE THE NURSE NOTED MY HEAD AND FACE HAD BEEN STRUCK NUMEROUS TIMES WITH WEAPONS THAT LEFT MULTIPLE PUNCTURE WOUNDS. IN ADDITION MY LEFT EARDRUM HAD BEEN RUPTURED. PLEASE NOTE HERE THAT OFFICER DYKSTRA WROTE ME A FIGHTING TICKET DESPITE NO EVIDENCE OF INJURY TO ANYONE BUT ME AS OUTLINED ABOVE. THE TICKET WAS THROWN OUT.
ON THE DATE INDICATED ABOVE I WAS RELEASED FROM SEG WITH THE TWO GANG MEMBERS WHO ASSAULTED ME. RIGHT IN FRONT OF SEG THEY ATTACKED ME, AND AGAIN DESPITE NO INVESTIGATION I WAS WRITTEN ANOTHER FIGHTING MISCONDUCT. THIS LAST ATTACK COMPLETELY EXPLODED MY EARDRUM TO DATE NO ONE FROM MCF ADMINISTRATION HAS INTERVIEWED ME ONCE. I'M WRITING THIS GRIEVANCE IN ACCORDANCE TO PRISONER LITIGATION REFORM ACT FOR 14TH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS.

(ECF No. 12-2, PageID.74).

         The grievance was rejected at Step I for raising “multiple issues.” (ECF No. 12-2 at PageID.75.) Plaintiff's Step II and Step III appeals were denied on findings that the Step I grievance was appropriately rejected based on Policy Directive 03.02.130, ¶ G. (Id. at PageIDs 71, 73.)

         II. Legal Framework

         A. Objections to Report and Recommendation

         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)(C); 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) (holding the district court need not provide de novo review where the objections are frivolous, conclusive, or too general because the burden is on the parties to “pinpoint those portions of the magistrate's report that the district court must specifically consider”).

         B. ...


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.