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.

Hardrick v. Mackie

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

July 11, 2019

FREDDY HARDRICK, Plaintiff,
v.
THOMAS MACKIE, Defendant.

          HON. ROBERT J. JONKER

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          RAY KENT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This is a pro se civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by plaintiff Freddy Hardrick, a state prisoner at a Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) facility. This matter is now before the Court on defendant Thomas Mackie's motion for summary judgment based on failure to exhaust (ECF No. 10).

         I. Background

         Plaintiff's complaint alleged that defendant Oaks Correctional Facility (ECF) Warden Thomas Mackie denied him out-of-cell exercise in violation of the Eighth Amendment from September 11, 2016 through October 29, 2016. See Compl. (ECF No. 1, PageID.3-6).

         II. Defendant's motions for summary judgment

         A. Legal standard for summary judgment

         Defendant seeks summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing this lawsuit. “The court shall grant summary judgment 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). Rule 56 further provides that a party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by:

(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or
(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.

         Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1).

         In Copeland v. Machulis, 57 F.3d 476 (6th Cir. 1995), the court set forth the parties' burden of proof in a motion for summary judgment:

The moving party bears the initial burden of establishing an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case. Once the moving party has met its burden of production, the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but must present significant probative evidence in support of the complaint to defeat the motion for summary judgment. The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence to support plaintiff's position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.

Copeland, 57 F.3d at 478-79 (citations omitted). “In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court views the factual evidence and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” McLean v. 988011 ...


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.