United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER
T. NEFF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a prisoner civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Defendant Platte, the remaining Defendant in
this case, filed a motion for summary judgment on
Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claims,
the only claims remaining in this case. The matter was
referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and
Recommendation (R&R) on April 2, 2019, recommending that
this Court grant the motion and close this case. 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
Eighth Amendment excessive force claims are based on his
allegations that on May 18, 2016 and again on May 7, 2017,
Defendant Platte closed the cell door on Plaintiff’s
foot, causing serious injury to Plaintiff’s foot. The
Magistrate Judge determined that, based on the evidence in
the record, Plaintiff cannot satisfy either the objective or
subjective component of the claims (R&R, ECF No. 57 at
PageID.609). With regard to the objective component, the
Magistrate Judge pointed out that Defendants submitted
evidence that when encountering an object in its path, the
cell doors in question apply “very limited
pressure” and if such pressure is unsuccessful in
dislodging the obstruction, then the door “will quickly
stop moving” (id. at PageID.610). The
Magistrate Judge indicated that Plaintiff had presented no
evidence to the contrary (id.). Further, the
Magistrate Judge determined that the record revealed that
Plaintiff suffered his foot injury almost two months before
the May 18, 2016 incident at issue (R&R, ECF No. 57 at
PageID.610). Again, the Magistrate Judge indicated that
Plaintiff had presented no evidence to the contrary and no
evidence indicating that his foot injury was exacerbated as a
result of allegedly being shut in his cell door on the dates
in question (id.). The Magistrate Judge concluded
that “[t]he evidence before the Court, therefore,
reveals that Plaintiff experienced at most a de minimis
application of force which simply fails to implicate the
Eighth Amendment” (id.).
respect to the subjective component of the analysis, the
Magistrate Judge pointed out that Plaintiff conceded in his
October 16, 2018 deposition testimony, which was attached to
Plaintiff’s response, that “he has no evidence
establishing that Defendant Platte, before making the
decision to close the unit’s cell doors, knew that
Plaintiff was standing in the doorway of his cell or was
otherwise incapable of exiting his cell before being struck
by his cell door” (R&R, ECF No. 57 at PageID.610).
Thus, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff cannot
establish that Defendant’s act of closing the cell
doors, which allegedly resulted in Plaintiff’s foot
being struck, was an act of “obduracy and wantonness,
” as opposed to merely an “inadvertence or error
in good faith” (id.).
objections, Plaintiff asserts that a genuine issue of
material fact exists as to whether Defendant is responsible
for Plaintiff’s foot injury (Pl.’s Objs., ECF No.
58 at PageID.618-622).
attaches to his objections an affidavit from himself, dated
April 15, 2019, in which Plaintiff similarly asserts that a
genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Defendant
is responsible for Plaintiff’s foot injury (ECF No.
58-1). Plaintiff’s affidavit relies on allegations he
presented in a grievance that Defendant “knew that he
closed the cell door on Plaintiff’s foot but lied when
confronted about it” (Aff. ¶ 6, ECF No. 58-1 at
PageID.629). Plaintiff references another grievance in which
he alleged that Defendant is responsible for his foot injury
(Aff. ¶ 7, ECF No. 58-1 at PageID.630).
objections, which reiterate-sometimes verbatim-the response
he filed in opposition to Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment (ECF No. 55), fail to demonstrate any
factual or legal error by the Magistrate Judge. And, even
assuming the propriety of the timing of Plaintiff’s
attached affidavit, the affidavit does not alter the
Magistrate Judge’s analysis or ultimate conclusion.
Plaintiff’s affidavit does not address, let alone
refute, the evidence that Defendant submitted about the
manner in which the cell doors operate or Plaintiff’s
deposition testimony. In short, Plaintiff’s objections
are properly denied.
this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation as the Opinion of this Court. Because this
Opinion and Order resolves the last pending claim in this
case, a Judgment will also be entered. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 58. Because this action was filed in forma
pauperis, this Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3), that an appeal of this decision would not
be taken in good faith. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth,
114 F.3d 601, 610 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds
by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 206, 211-12 (2007).
IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF No. 58)
are DENIED and the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 57) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the
Opinion of the Court.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Platte’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 51) is GRANTED.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court certifies
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of