United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
L. Maloney United States District Judge.
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.
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.
focus of the motion for summary judgment, the R & R, and
Plaintiff's objections is Grievance No.
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
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
(ECF No. 12-2, PageID.74).
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,
Objections to Report and Recommendation
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