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.

Sanford v. Mullins

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

September 23, 2019

DOMINIC SANFORD, Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN MULLINS, et al., Defendants.

          Hon. Paul L. Maloney Judge.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Ray Kent United States Magistrate Judge.

         This is a pro se civil rights action brought by a prisoner in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC). This matter is now before the Court on defendants Mullins and Bunting's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 51).

         I. Background

         Plaintiff's complaint named the following MDOC employees at Ionia Correctional Facility (ICF) as defendants: Assistant Resident Unit Supervisor Lloyd Thurlsby; Inspector Miniard; Grievance Coordinator C. Lewis; Capt. Cassel; Lt. Zwiker; Sgt. Desrochers; Correctional Officer (CO) Mullins; Medical Manager Jody Lebarre; Medical Supervisor Joanne Bunting; and Nurses Nicole Doolittle and Unknown Cafiero. Opinion (ECF No. 5, PageID.56). The Court previously summarized plaintiff's claims as follows:

Plaintiff's claims arise out of an incident at ICF on April 3, 2016. On that date, Defendants Mullins and Desrochers took Plaintiff to segregation for exhibiting threatening behavior. On the way, Defendants Mullins and Desrochers took Plaintiff to the shower area and ordered him to strip for purposes of a search. Plaintiff handed his clothing to Defendant Mullins. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Mullins, unbeknownst to Plaintiff, stepped to the side and sprayed pepper spray on Plaintiff's undershorts. When Plaintiff put on his clothing, he suffered a severe burning sensation on his genitals, scrotum, and anus. Plaintiff was handcuffed and taken to his segregation cell. He was not supplied with soap and towels to permit him to wash off the spray. The spray continued to chafe and burn.
Plaintiff requested medical care for the burns. Plaintiff claims that Defendants Bunting and Cafiero would not provide treatment for nearly a week. By that time, the burn had subsided. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Doolittle also refused to provide care because Plaintiff complained that the officers had assaulted him.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Desrochers, Cassell, Thurlsby, Miniard, Zwiker, and Lewis are responsible for Defendant Mullins' actions because they failed to supervise him or intervene, rectify, or investigate the incident. (Complaint, ECF No. 1, PageID.5.) Similarly, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Lebarre failed to provide corrective supervision for the health care provider defendants. (Id., PageID.4-5.)

Id. at PageID.56-57 (footnote omitted). All defendants have been dismissed from this case except for CO Mullins and Medical Supervisor Bunting (named as “Buntind” on the docket sheet). Now, defendants Mullins and Bunting have moved for summary judgment.

         II. Defendants' motion for summary judgment

         A. Legal standard

         “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 ...

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.