United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Kushawn S. Miles, #237011, Plaintiff,
v.
Michigan Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
PAUL
L. MALONEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This is
a civil rights action brought pro se by a state prisoner
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000cc-1(a). The case centers around Plaintiff’s
allegation that in February 2016, Defendants violated his
rights under the Constitution and RLUIPA when they denied his
request for a religious meal accommodation. On August 1,
2019, United States Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Green issued
a Report & Recommendation (“R&R”)
recommending that the Court grant the remaining
Defendants’, Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC)
and David Leach, motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 21),
deny Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction
(ECF No. 24), and deny Plaintiff’s motion for joinder
(ECF No. 32; R&R ECF No. 39). This matter is now before
the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R (ECF
No. 40). For the reasons to be discussed, the Court will
overrule all objections and adopt the R&R as the Opinion
of the Court.
Legal
Framework
With
respect to a dispositive motion, a magistrate judge issues a
report and recommendation, rather than an order. After being
served with a report and recommendation (R&R) issued by a
magistrate judge, a party has fourteen days to file written
objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). 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);
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”). Failure to file an objection
results in a waiver of the issue and the issue cannot be
appealed. United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976,
984 (6th Cir. 2005); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 155 (upholding the Sixth Circuit’s practice).
The district court judge may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by
the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
Analysis
Plaintiff
first argues that the magistrate judge erred when he granted
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment because several
questions of fact still exist. First, Plaintiff argues that a
question of fact exists as to whether he actually consumed
prohibited foods, so his claims should survive the motion for
summary disposition. However, this question of fact is not
relevant, because the mere purchase or possession of foods
contrary to a requested diet is sufficient to deny a
prisoner’s request for that specific diet. See
Russe l v. Wilkinson, 79 F. App’x. 175, 177
(6th Cir. 2003). In his objection, Plaintiff acknowledges
that “[t]he evidence establishes that Plaintiff ordered
non-halal food from the prison store on multiple
occasions” (ECF No. 40 at ¶ 3, PageID.338).
Therefore, this objection is meritless; it does not matter
whether Plaintiff was eating foods contrary to his requested
meal plan because it is undisputed that he possessed foods
contrary to the requested meal plan. This objection is
overruled.
Plaintiff
also argues that questions of fact remain regarding whether
he had alternate means to self-select food items that met his
dietary needs, and regarding the motivation behind Defendant
Leach’s denial of his meal plan request. However, on
both issues, Plaintiff has raised only vague allegations
without supporting evidence. Plaintiff’s allegations
alone are insufficient to create a question of fact to
survive summary disposition. See Pack v. Damon
Corp., 434 F.3d 810, 813-14 (6th Cir. 2006) (noting that
a nonmoving party may not rest upon mere allegations but
instead must set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue
for trial). Further, Defendants have produced evidence that
support the magistrate judge’s findings: Defendants
provided Plaintiff’s purchase history, showing that he
was purchasing food to supplement his meal plan and that some
of these purchases were not Halal (ECF No. 22-4). Plaintiff
has presented no evidence to the contrary. And Defendants
presented an affidavit of Defendant Leach stating that
Plaintiff’s meal plan request was denied because of the
non-Halal purchases (ECF No. 22-3 at ¶ 6, PageID.134).
Again, Plaintiff has presented no evidence to the contrary.
Plaintiff’ objections based on his own allegations are
insufficient to create a question of fact and survive summary
judgment. These objections are overruled.
Plaintiff
next objects to the R&R’s disposition of his RLUIPA
claim: Plaintiff recognizes that Defendant Leach has retired,
and states that he intended his RLUIPA claims to attach to
Leach’s successor. Plaintiff does not pinpoint a
specific objection, and this Court is not required to address
a vague objection. See Mira, 806 F.2d at 637. However, the
Court notes that the R&R directly addresses this issue
and the magistrate judge correctly found that the claims
against Leach were not moot because Leach’s successor
“automatically substituted” in as a party when
Leach retired (ECF No. 39 at 13, PageID.328). Plaintiff has
not identified any error on this issue, so this objection is
overruled.
Plaintiff
next argues that the magistrate judge’s conclusions
were biased because he did not read or consider
Plaintiff’s pleadings, and because the R&R makes
improper “credibility determinations” about
evidence. Specifically, Plaintiff objects to the
R&R’s conclusion that “Plaintiff’s
[purchase of prohibited food] called into question the
sincerity of his professed religious beliefs” (ECF No.
39 at 16, PageID.331). Plaintiff argues that this is a biased
characterization of the evidence, and that it shows that the
magistrate judge disregarded his pleadings and failed to
accept them as true.
This
objection is meritless primarily because Plaintiff did not
put forth any evidence for the magistrate judge to consider.
As the R&R recognizes, plaintiff’s complaint is
verified under penalty of perjury, so it is considered an
affidavit in opposition to Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment (ECF No. 39 at 7, PageID.322). However,
Plaintiff’s brief opposing the motion for summary
judgment does not contain a statement of facts (ECF No. 23).
This brief presents only legal conclusions and
Plaintiff’s own allegations, which the R&R
correctly disregards as insufficient to create a genuine
issue of material fact (ECF No. 39 at 7, PageID.322). See
Medison Am. Inc. v. Preferred Med. Sys., LLC, 357 F.
App’x. 656 662 (6th Cir. 2009); Pack, 434 F.3d at
813-14. Further, the specific sentence Plaintiff objects to
is directly supported by Defendant Leach’s affidavit,
which states that he denied Plaintiff’s religious meal
plan request because Plaintiff was purchasing prohibited
foods (ECF No. 22-3 at ¶ 6, PageID.134). Plaintiff
agrees that he purchased non-Halal foods (ECF No. 40 at
¶ 3, PageID.338). This pattern of continued non-Halal
purchases reasonably led Defendant Leach to question the
sincerity of Plaintiff’s religious beliefs.
Plaintiff’s allegation that the R&R is biased or
erroneous based on its evaluation of the evidence is
overruled.
Plaintiff
continues by arguing that a question of fact still exists
regarding whether his religious beliefs were sincerely held.
Plaintiff cites Hall v. Martin, 2015 WL 1191886
(W.D. Mich., Mar. 11, 2015), as support for his proposition,
but fails to acknowledge that Hall does not involve the
purchase of prohibited items. Id. Rather, Hall
involves the denial of a religious meal plan request based on
prison officials’ subjective determination that
plaintiff did not have “sincerely” held religious
beliefs about Kosher veganism. Hall is not persuasive here.
Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to present evidence that his
religious beliefs were sincerely held to oppose
Defendant’s evidence that Plaintiff purchased non-Halal
foods. Accordingly, the R&R’s determination that
Plaintiff’s sincerity was questionable is supported by
the evidence, and this objection is overruled.
Plaintiff’s
next objection concerns the R&R’s reliance on
Berryman v. Granholm, 343 F.App'x 1 (6th Cir. 2009).
Plaintiff argues that Berryman is inapplicable because it
involves the consumption of prohibited foods, and he was not
actually eating the prohibited foods he possessed. This
argument fails: in Berryman, the Sixth Circuit accepted
plaintiff Berryman’s allegation that he ordered and
signed for, but did not eat, non-Kosher food; even so, his
removal from the Kosher meal plan was proper. Berryman, 343
F.App'x at 6. Plaintiff’s characterization of
Berryman is incorrect, and this objection is overruled.
Plaintiff
also objects to the magistrate judge’s denial of his
motion for a preliminary injunction because he is still
suffering irreparable harm, as evidenced by the second denial
of a religious meal plan request in 2018. Plaintiff sets
forth a cursory argument claiming that because of these
denials, he is being forced to violate the tenets of his
religion. However, as recognized in the R&R, Plaintiff is
consistently purchasing foods that violate the tenets of his
religion. It is unclear how the meal plan denial harms
plaintiff more than the purchase of non-Halal foods. Further,
the Court notes that the magistrate judge correctly ...