United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Hon.
Janet T. Neff, Judge.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Ellen
S. Carmody, U.S. Magistrate Judge.
This
matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 16), and Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 29). Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the undersigned recommends
that Defendants' motions be granted and
this matter terminated.
BACKGROUND
The
following allegations are contained in Plaintiff's
complaint. (ECF No. 1). In May 2010, Plaintiff injured his
shoulder “while exercising in an MDOC facility.”
Despite repeatedly requesting medical care, over the course
of the next three years, Plaintiff received minimal treatment
consisting of nothing more than Tylenol and a hot water
bottle. In August 2013, and again in March 2014, Plaintiff
received steroid injections in his shoulder. In February
2015, Plaintiff was examined by a doctor who concluded that
Plaintiff's shoulder “required surgical
intervention.” This conclusion was confirmed by a
second examination performed in May 2015. Plaintiff believed
that he would be scheduled for surgery, but was informed in
February 2016, that his request for shoulder surgery had been
denied in July 2015 by Dr. Keith Papendick.
Plaintiff
initiated this action on June 22, 2018, against: (1); Dr.
Jeffrey Stieve; (2) Dr. William Borgerding; (3) Corizon
Health, Inc.; (4) Dr. Keith Papendick; (5) Dr. Jeffrey
Bomber; and (6) Dr. Robert Lacy. Plaintiff alleges that the
individual defendants denied him medical treatment in
violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. Plaintiff alleges
that Corizon violated his constitutional rights by acting
pursuant to a policy of deliberate indifference. Defendants
now move for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff
has failed to properly exhaust his administrative remedies.
SUMMARY
JUDGMENT STANDARD
Summary
judgment "shall" be granted "if the movant
shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A party moving for summary
judgment can satisfy its burden by demonstrating "that
the respondent, having had sufficient opportunity for
discovery, has no evidence to support an essential element of
his or her case." Minadeo v. ICI Paints, 398
F.3d 751, 761 (6th Cir. 2005). Once the moving party
demonstrates that "there is an absence of evidence to
support the nonmoving party's case," the non-moving
party "must identify specific facts that can be
established by admissible evidence, which demonstrate a
genuine issue for trial." Amini v. Oberlin
College, 440 F.3d 350, 357 (6th Cir. 2006).
While
the Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party, the party opposing the summary
judgment motion "must do more than simply show that
there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material
facts." Amini, 440 F.3d at 357. The existence
of a mere "scintilla of evidence" in support of the
non-moving party's position is insufficient. Daniels
v. Woodside, 396 F.3d 730, 734-35 (6th Cir. 2005). The
non-moving party "may not rest upon [his] mere
allegations," but must instead present "significant
probative evidence" establishing that "there is a
genuine issue for trial." Pack v. Damon Corp.,
434 F.3d 810, 813-14 (6th Cir. 2006).
Moreover,
the non-moving party cannot defeat a properly supported
motion for summary judgment by "simply arguing that it
relies solely or in part upon credibility
determinations." Fogerty v. MGM Group Holdings
Corp., Inc., 379 F.3d 348, 353 (6th Cir. 2004). Rather,
the non-moving party "must be able to point to some
facts which may or will entitle him to judgment, or refute
the proof of the moving party in some material portion, and.
. .may not merely recite the incantation,
'Credibility,' and have a trial on the hope that a
jury may disbelieve factually uncontested proof."
Id. at 353-54. In sum, summary judgment is
appropriate "against a party who fails to make a showing
sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential
to that party's case, and on which that party will bear
the burden of proof at trial." Daniels, 396
F.3d at 735.
While a
moving party without the burden of proof need only show that
the opponent cannot sustain his burden at trial, a moving
party with the burden of proof faces a "substantially
higher hurdle." Arnett v. Myers, 281 F.3d 552,
561 (6th Cir. 2002). Where the moving party has the burden,
"his showing must be sufficient for the court to hold
that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for
the moving party." Calderone v. United States,
799 F.2d 254, 259 (6th Cir. 1986). The Sixth Circuit has
emphasized that the party with the burden of proof "must
show the record contains evidence satisfying the burden of
persuasion and that the evidence is so powerful that no
reasonable jury would be free to disbelieve it."
Arnett, 281 F.3d at 561. Accordingly, summary
judgment in favor of the party with the burden of persuasion
"is inappropriate when the evidence is susceptible of
different interpretations or inferences by the trier of
fact." Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 553
(1999).
ANALYSIS
Pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), a prisoner asserting an action
with respect to prison conditions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
must first exhaust all available administrative remedies.
See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524
(2002). Prisoners are no longer required to demonstrate
exhaustion in their complaints. See Jones v. Bock,
549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007). Instead, failure to exhaust
administrative remedies is "an affirmative defense under
the PLRA" which the defendant bears the burden of
establishing. Id. With respect to what constitutes
proper exhaustion, the Supreme Court has stated that
"the PLRA exhaustion requirement requires proper
exhaustion" defined as "compliance with an
agency's deadlines and other critical procedural
rules." Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-93
(2006). In Bock, the Court reiterated that
Compliance with prison grievance procedures, therefore, is
all that is required by the PLRA to 'properly
exhaust.' The level of detail necessary in a grievance to
comply with the grievance procedures will vary from system to
system and claim to claim, but it is the prison's
...