United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division
OPINION AND ORDER
T. NEFF, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a prisoner civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment.
The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a
Report and Recommendation (R&R), recommending that this
Court grant Defendant’s motion and dismiss this action.
The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s
objections to the Report and Recommendation. In accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3),
the Court has performed de novo consideration of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections
have been made. The Court denies the objections and issues
this Opinion and Order.
Magistrate Judge determined that Defendant is entitled to
summary judgment of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment and
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claims (R&R, ECF
No. 56 at PageID.570-573). The Magistrate Judge also
determined that Plaintiff has not sufficiently plead a claim
of civil conspiracy (id. at PageID.574).
only portion of the Report and Recommendation that Plaintiff
addresses with any specificity is the Magistrate
Judge’s analysis of his deliberate indifference claim
under the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff argues that he has
shown, in great depth, that Defendant was aware of the risks
to Plaintiff’s physical, emotional, and mental health
and ignored the risks in refusing to give Plaintiff access to
a wheelchair, causing Plaintiff to suffer “injuries
caused by prolonged walking” (Pl. Obj., ECF No. 57 at
argument is unavailing. The Magistrate Judge expressly
considered Plaintiff’s claims that Defendant “was
deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical
condition when MacLaren refused Plaintiff access to his
wheelchair” and that Plaintiff “was forced to
walk considerable distances throughout the day, which
aggravated his disability” (R&R, ECF No. 56 at
PageID.561). The Magistrate Judge delineated several
incidents that Plaintiff alleged were representative of
Defendant’s deliberate indifference (id. at
PageID.561-562) and summarized the medical records Plaintiff
submitted (id. at PageID.566-567). The Magistrate
Judge determined that based on these medical records and the
changes in Plaintiff’s conditions, an issue of material
fact exists as to the objective component of the
Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim-
specifically, “whether the allegedly inadequate
wheelchair accommodation was detrimental to Plaintiff’s
serious medical condition” (id. at
PageID.567). However, the Magistrate Judge determined that
Plaintiff had not provided “any evidence that Defendant
was aware of the inadequacy of the accommodation or the
existence of a substantial risk of serious harm, ”
pointing out that mere differences in judgment do not support
a deliberate indifference claim (id. at PageID.568).
The Magistrate Judge therefore concluded that Defendant is
entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment deliberate indifference claim. Plaintiff’s
objection merely sets forth the arguments and evidence
thoroughly considered by the Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff’s objection fails to demonstrate any factual
or legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or
otherwise objects to “every issue raised in the
Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation, ”
asserting that the Magistrate Judge did not read his response
to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Pl. Obj.,
ECF No. 57 at PageID.580). Asserting that the Magistrate
Judge failed to consider Plaintiff’s arguments is too
broad an assertion to constitute a valid objection to the
Magistrate Judge’s analyses of his remaining claims.
See Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir.
1995) (holding that “objections disput[ing] the
correctness of the magistrate’s recommendation but
fail[ing] to specify the findings . . . believed [to be] in
error” are too general). Plaintiff’s mere
disagreement with, and overly general objections to, the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation do not
warrant its rejection. In any event, the Court notes that
Plaintiff’s assertion is belied by the fact that the
Magistrate Judge frequently referenced Plaintiff’s
response to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment
throughout the Report and Recommendation. See
R&R, ECF No. 56 at PageID.560, 562, 566, 567, 572, 573.
this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation as the Opinion of this Court. Because this
Opinion and Order resolves all pending claims, a Judgment
will also be entered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF No. 57)
are DENIED and the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 56) is
APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for